Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
University of Toronto
A CONSIDERATION OF THE
FEDERATION OF THE SEVEN
WITH A MAP
LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO
FOURTH AVENUE & 30TH STREET, NEW YORK
LONDON, BOMBAY, CALCUTTA AND MADRAS
All Rights Reserved
The Author is indebted to the following publishers and authors
for kind permission to make quotations from copyright matter :
to Mr. Edward Arnold for Colonial Nationalism, by Richard Jebb ;
to Mr. B. H. Black well for Imperial Architects, by A. L. Burt ; to
the Delegates of the Clarendon Press for Federations and Unions,
by H. E. Egerton ; to Messrs. Constable & Co. for Alexander
Hamilton, by F. S. Oliver, and The Nation and the Empire, edited
by Lord Milner ; to the publishers of the Encyclopaedia Britan-
nica ; to Messrs. Macmillan & Co. for Seeley's Expansion of
England, and G. L. Parkin's Imperial Federation ; to Admiral
Mahan ; to Mr. John Murray for English Colonization and Empire,
by A. Caldecott ; to Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons Ltd. for The Union
of South Africa, by W. B. Worsfold ; to the Executors of the late
W. T. Stead for the Last Will and Testament of C. J. Rhodes ; to
Messrs. H. Stevens, Son & Stiles for Thomas Pownall, by C. A. W.
Pownall ; to Messrs. Houghton, Mifflin Company for Thayer's
John Marshall and Woodrow Wilson's Mere Literature ; to Messrs.
D. C. Heath & Co. for Woodrow Wilson's The State ; to Messrs.
G. P. Putnam's Sons for The Works of Benjamin Franklin,
edited by John Bigelow ; to the Yale University Press for
Popular Government, by W. H. Taft ; and also to The Times ;
The Round Table ; The Outlook ; and The Springfield Weekly
The English-speaking, self-governing white people
of the world in 1914 number upwards of one
hundred and forty-one millions. Since December
24, 1814, there has been unbroken peace between
the two independent groups of this race — a fact
that contravenes the usual historical experiences
of peoples between whom there has been uninter-
rupted communication during so long an epoch.
The last few decades have seen increasingly close
understandings between both the governments and
the peoples of this civilization.
In 1900 the British navy controlled the seas — all
seas. From 1910 to 1914 the British navy has
controlled the North Sea only. 1 Some doubt
whether this control can long be maintained. If
it is lost, the British Empire is finished. 2 The
adhesion of the dependencies to their various
governments and also the voluntary cohesion of
the self-governing units would be at an end. " The
disorders which followed the fall of Rome would
be insignificant compared with those which would
1 Cf. Round Table, London, May 1911, p. 247.
2 Round Table, London, November 1.910, p. 27 : " Directly the
British Empire is doubtful of its supremacy by sea its full liberty
will disappear, even if there has been no war."
viii THE PAN-ANGLES
ensue were the British Empire to break in pieces." 1
Such a splitting up would place each English-
speaking nation in an exposed position, and would
strengthen its rivals, Germany, Japan, Russia, and
China. It would compel America to protect with
arms, or to abandon to its enemies, not only the
countries to which the Monroe Doctrine has been
considered as applicable, but those lands still more
important to the future of our race, New Zealand
and Australia. If this catastrophe is to be averted,
the English-speaking peoples must regain control
of the seas.
These pages are concerned with the English-
speaking people of 1914. Here will be found no
jingoism, if this be defined as a desire to flaunt
power for its own sake ; no altruism, if this means
placing the welfare of others before one's own ; and
no sentiment except that which leads to self-pre-
servation. No technical discussion of military or
naval power is here attempted. The purpose of
these pages is to indicate some of the common
heritages of these English-speaking peoples, their
need of land and their desire for the sole privilege
of taxing themselves for their own purposes and in
their own way.
Federation is here recognized as the method by
which English-speaking people ensure the freedom
of the individual. It utilizes ideals and methods
common to them all. Where it has been applied,
it fulfils its dual purpose of protecting the group
and leaving the individual unhampered.
This consideration may appear to the political
1 United Empire, London, January 1914, J. G. Lockhart,
"The Meaning of British Imperialism," p. 53.
economist to be merely a few comments on one
instance of the relationship of the food supply to
the excess of births over deaths ; to the international
politician, as notes on the struggles of the English-
speaking race ; and to the business man, as hints
on present and future markets and the maintenance
of routes thereto. Books could be written on each
of these and kindred topics. This is not any one
of such treatises, but a statement of only a few
aspects of a huge question.
To Benjamin Franklin may be given the credit
of initiating the thesis of these pages, for he fore-
saw in 1754 the need of a single government based
on the representation of both the American and
British groups of self-governing English-speaking
people. Possibly there were others before him.
Certainly there have been many since. Some
have been obscured by time. Others, like Cecil
John Rhodes, stand out brilliantly. These men
visioned the whole race without losing sight of
their own local fragment. They saw the need of
blocking intra-race frictions in order to maintain
our inter-race supremacy. They spoke the English
language, and held by the ideals of English-speak-
ing men — proud of their race.
To such as these, wherever they are found,
owing affection to the British and American flags
which they protect, and which protect them from
others, this discussion is addressed. It is a family
appeal in terms familiar to the family here called —
the Pan- Angles.
January \1, 1914.
I. THE CIVILIZATION
II. THE PEOPLE
IV. THE SEVEN NATIONS
V. GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICES
VIII. A COMMON GOVERNMENT
IX. WORKING FOR FEDERATION
the end oj
r the volume
A great civilization has spread over the earth.
Many millions of people believe it the best that
has yet appeared. In it the faiths and strivings of
a strong race are expressed. History teaches that
it will be assailed by rival civilizations. Must it
fall and its people be led into the bondage of alien
The date at which a civilization begins must
always be unknown, so slowly and steadily do the
contributing forces operate. The birth of even so
definite an organization as a nation is a matter
of opinion. The United States of America, for
example, may be regarded as having come into
being on July 4, 1776, or at the adoption of the
Constitution in 1789, or at the end of the French
War in 1763, or on any one of various other dates,
according to the historical bias of the chronicler.
But before records now legible to us were made, the
Pan- Angles were long past their beginning stages.
Thousands of years ago Europe emerged from the
2 THE PAN ANGLES
glacial ice. Off its western coast lay islands. The
largest was close to the continent, and whatever
peoples made their way into Europe had no great
difficulty in crossing the narrow water. Migration
must have followed migration, as continental tribes,
more progressive that the islanders, came with
superior weapons and skill to conquer and colonize.
Bronze drove out flint and iron overcame bronze.
Settlements of invaders assimilated with the sub-
ject natives and themselves became natives to the
next foreign exploiter. The resulting people became
known to the Romans as Britons. Rome's traders
saw that the land was worth possessing.
In the middle of the first century a.d., Imperial
Rome was in a mood for further expansion. It
became necessary to intervene in the affairs of the
northern island, touched already by Roman in-
fluence, but as yet independent of that power. In
the island there were many princes and many
governments adequate to the local demands, but
no organization for concerted action against a
powerful intruder. Within fifty years the task
of pacification was largely accomplished. The
southern two-thirds of the land then enjoyed the
beneficent rule of Roman administrators. They
governed Britain for its own good — as they saw it.
They made it as much as possible like Rome.
Baths and temples, roads and bridges, and a firm
law brought Roman enlightenment to uncultured
Britain. The Latin tongue was the official language.
Many Romans of the military and civil services
married native women. For more than two
centuries Britain was thus a dependency of Rome,
and many Britons were proud to belong to the
THE CIVILIZATION 3
great empire. The rest of the island, to which
this boon was never extended, was inhabited by bar-
barous hill tribes, who, even when Rome was strong,
could protect themselves, and who at favourable
opportunities made raids against the loyal Britons.
The Romans had come to Britain to rule it, but
had remained Romans, had taken their orders from
colonial secretaries in Rome, had left their Roman
wives and children at home — presumably because
of the severity of Britain's climate, — and after an
honourable term of service had retired on half-pay,
or something as good. Just how Rome profited
by holding Britain is immaterial now, whether
by tribute levied and collected directly, whether
through extended opportunities for trade, or
whether in the employment ("outdoor relief," a
Canadian might put it 1 ) of a large military and
civil force, paid, if Britain were self-supporting, by
Britain's taxes. Perhaps the knowledge of having
discharged a duty, shirking not the burden of the
strong, was the reward Rome really prized.
A change of rulers was, however, in store for
them all — Briton and Roman alike. By 350 a.d.
a huge amorphous rival had begun to overflow its
Northern forest, a race of strong, eager men seeking
more land. That their first attacks were toward
Rome itself showed the empire's weakness. Rome's
intentions toward outlying dependencies may have
been of the best, but it was powerless to fulfil them.
The navy, such as it was, was forced to concentrate
in home waters ; and the army, called to protect
the heart of the empire, left empty the barracks of
1 Round Table, London, September 1913, p. 639,
4 THE PAN-ANGLES
Then, on the disorganized Britain, borne by the
north-east wind, fell the invaders. With them came
many of our most cherished virtues and a new
epoch of governmental theory. The Jutes, Angles,
Saxons, Danes, and Norsemen came, not to super-
impose themselves as rulers, but to colonize. They
brought their families along. The climate suited
them nicely. They wanted to live there and make
the country their country. The fact that it was
already inhabited formed only a temporary obstacle.
As has happened repeatedly in history, those who
came were strong ; those they found were weak.
The right of prior occupation was matched against
the right to take by force. In time the natives
had disappeared and the newcomers were settling
and improving the land. There was no looking
back to a mother country for orders or protection.
Their fathers across the North Sea had evolved
certain governmental ideas. These the migrating
generations had carried with them and planted in
the new soil. They proved adequate ; and if any
tie bound the lusty offspring to the ancestral home
it could have been sentiment only — unencouraged
by written and electric communication. The senti-
ment was short-lived.
Of these separate colonies there were as many as
there were tribes, and as many tribes as there were
shiploads. They all came from the great Teutonic
stock that covered so much of north-western
Europe. Five hundred years they spent trying
conclusions among themselves, deciding what should
be the language, the law, the name, they were to
hand down to us. The people long remained
without any name common to all; but in time
THE CIVILIZATION 5
their country became known as England. Here
were established the characteristics that have
marked us ever since. The framework of the
language was set ; the greed for land was indulged ;
and the instinct for self-government, unable to
evolve for its own security any system of central
control, proved finally the undoing of all the
jealous little autonomies. When a single-minded
force threatened their cherished liberties, they
were capable of no single-minded resistance. A
neighbour across the channel thought he could
make good use of England, proved his point one
day when the wind blew favourably towards
Hastings, and became England's master.
Then began a new governmental era, one having
no parallel in our history since. The Saxon had
been in most recent supremacy. Wealth and
power passed from Saxon to Norman hands.
Had the Duchy of Normandy been large enough
to form the centre of its ruler's activities, England,
like the Britain of the past, would have become a
dependency of a foreign power. Two factors pre-
vented : England, because of its size and of its
separation from the continent was the more valued
possession of the two ; and William and his
followers, although considering themselves greatly
superior in culture and breeding, were really of the
same race as the men they conquered, and hence
easily assimilated with them. Had this been an
invasion of people, that is, of men with their wives
and children — it must have meant extermination
of the Angles, Saxons, and Danes, either in war or
in economic strife. But no such colonizing force
was at work. The lords of England were reduced
6 THE PAN-ANGLES
to peasantry, and the peasants of whatever origin
kept on about their affairs. In time the new
nobility was no longer foreign. Neither a depend-
ency, nor a colony, England gradually absorbed the
Normans and all the importance of Normandy.
From this assimilation England rose independent
and a unit. The Normans, it has been said, crushed
the Angles, Danes, and Saxons into one people. 1
Just as inexorably were the Normans themselves
fused into the common mass —
"Thus from a mixture of all kinds began,
That heterogeneous thing, an Englishman : . . .
The silent nations uhdistinguish'd fall,
An Englishman's the common name for all.
Fate jumbled them together, God knows how ;
Whate'er they were, they're true-born English now. 11 2
Out of the vigour and strength that resulted have
risen the Pan- Angles ; and no foreign power since
then has conquered or ruled them in England or
elsewhere. With several governmental units co-
ordinated to no central authority, England had been
devastated and had been unable to repel invasions.
These local powers were now combined under a
strong unitary government. So efficient did it
prove for many generations, that Pan- Angles as a
whole are only now realising its limitations. For
five centuries no change in circumstances warranted
the consideration of any other.
Suddenly, in a few years, everything changed
except the minds of men. The world began to
1 C. H. Pearson, History of England during the Early and
Middle Ages, London, 1867, vol. i. p. 136.
2 Daniel Defoe, "The True-born Englishman: A Satire," in
Novels and Miscellaneous Works, London, 1855, vol. v. pp. 441, 442.
THE CIVILIZATION 7
grow, and Europe was staggered by the knowledge
of areas immeasurable as compared to the lands
previously known. England then began to take
its place as a great nation. In 1497 a ship, financed
by Bristol merchants, discovered Newfoundland, 1
and the sea-divided control of the Pan- Angles was
foreshadowed. From this date, perhaps, Pan-
Angle history may most conveniently be reckoned.
If so, four hundred and seventeen years lie behind us.
Of these the first hundred are negligible. That was
an age of fable, when the children of Europe went
out on lonely quests and staked their lives in ad-
venture for prizes whose value they could never
know. Men left England and circled the globe ;
they fished in distant waters ; 2 they bartered with
strange peoples ; but in the main they returned
again to England. No colonial policy was required
to meet their needs.
After 1600, however, they less often returned.
They settled the new lands, and grew great in
wealth and population. They organized govern-
ments and huge instruments of trade. Slowly the
fabric grew that was to dwarf England in size and
resources, and England, failing to understand that
it was no loser thereby, but richer as a part of a
1 Richard Hakluyt, The Principal Navigations Voyages Traffi-
ques and Discoveries of the English Nation, Hakluyt Society
reprint, Glasgow, 1904, vol. vii. p. 146: "IN the yere of our
Lord 1497 John Cabot a Venetian, and his sonne Sebastian (with
an English fleet set out from Bristoll) discovered that land which
no man before that time had attempted, on the 24 of June, about
five of the clocke early in the morning." Cf Alfred Caldecott,
English Colonization and Empire, London, 1891, p. 23.
2 D. W. Prowse, History of Newfoundland, London, 1895, pp.
28, 58, 83.
8 THE PAN-ANGLES
strengthening Pan- Angle civilization, found little
light on the problems arising. In 1607 Virginia and
in 1620 Massachusetts were permanently settled. 1
During the same years Englishmen were acquir-
ing titles and trading rights in India. Here, at
the outset, we have all the elements that long
made for obscurity and discord.
In Virginia and Massachusetts the land was
suitable for the occupations and for the breeding
of white men. These settlements were typical of
many in North America, South Africa, and Austral-
asia. The settler changed his latitude and longi-
tude, but little else. He pushed back the natives
from the land he desired to use, gave the place an
English name, and proceeded about his affairs with
his fundamental ideals, habits, and institutions un-
altered. He brought from England, besides furni-
ture and bricks for his house, his language, his
religion, and his notions of government. These he
preserved and handed down to his children, who in
turn thought and behaved as though Englanders,
and in two localities, a hemisphere apart, named
their land New England. Self-government was
one of their inherited ideas ; they believed that he
who supports the government with taxes should be
represented therein. Settlements such as these are
here distinguished as colonies. The first sprang
from England, and in some cases have themselves
been the prolific parents of new colonies. But of
whatever origin, all are a product of the individual-
ism of the Pan- Angle civilization. In them self-
1 John Fiske, Old Virginia and Her Neighbours, London, 1 897,
vol. i. pp. 93, 94 ; John Fiske, The Beginnings of New England,
Boston, 1889, pp. 81-83.
THE CIVILIZATION 9
government has been a question of time only.
" Assemblies were not formally instituted, but grew
of themselves because it was the nature of English-
men to assemble. Thus the old historian of the
colonies Hutchinson, writes under the year 1619,
* This year a House of Burgesses broke out in Vir-
ginia.' "* However strongly such colonies may be
attached by sentimental and political ties to some
other governmental group, they belong to them-
selves alone. On terms of equality they are part
of the Pan- Angle power that controls the world.
In India, and in the many other instances of
the same sort, the land was not suited for the
occupations and for the breeding of white men.
It was filled with native inhabitants who neither
gave way before the European, nor assimilated
with him. The English language, law, and
governmental forms might be superimposed to
some degree, but the great bulk of the people
continued to think, talk, and act in ways that
were not our ways. Their civilization, however
high, was not our civilization. Such lands, and
only such lands, may be called " possessions " of
any Pan- Angle nation. Ceylon belongs to the
British Isles ; the Cook Islands belong to New
Zealand ; Papua belongs to Australia ; and the
Philippines belong to the United States. Because
they " belong to " another than themselves, these
lands are called dependencies.
The men who ruled England in 1600 could not
anticipate this distinction so as to make their
phraseology, their thoughts and their efforts at
1 J. R. Seeley, The Expansion of England, London, 1883,
10 THE PAN-ANGLES
government correspond. Nor, as years passed,
did they come to understand it. Often they
knew little about these settlements, except that
all were distant very many days sailing. In
general, the tendency was to act as though all
were possessions belonging to England and sub-
ject to its will. To the statesman in London it
might seem at most a theoretical difference ; not
so to the man on the spot. If he were a colonist
he felt his land a part of the Mother Country, or
its equal in a larger group of which both were
parts. His land did not and could not belong to
England in any sense that gave him less liberty
than Englanders enjoyed.
Here, on the one side, was a stubborn fact ; on
the other, an inability to recognize that fact.
Friction resulted. In 1707 England united with
Scotland to form Great Britain. But Great
Britain, like England, thought colonies posses-
sions. It so regarded the American colonies.
The colonists understood what it was to desire
to be "part of" and to find they were considered
as " belonging to." In Taunton, Massachusetts,
they raised a liberty pole, October 21, 1774.
From it flew the flag of Great Britain bearing
the words " Liberty and Union." To the pole
was affixed the following lines :
CRESCIT AMOR PATRIAE LIBERTATIS
" Be it known to the present,
And to all future generations,
That the Sons of Liberty in Taunton
Fired with a zeal for the preservation of
THE CIVILIZATION 11
Their rights as men, and as
And prompted by a just resentment of
The wrongs and injuries offered to the
English colonies in general, and to
This Province in particular, . . ." 1
Not enough of the Pan-Angle statesmen of
those days had the insight to read rightly that
inscription. It was only by severing the Pan-
Angles that the American colonies demonstrated
that their citizens were the peers of the citizens
of Great Britain.
Yet there were men on both sides of the
Atlantic who even in those days appreciated that
one group of English-speaking white men cannot
be controlled by another. They understood the
equality of citizenship in all Pan- Angles. Of
these men it is enough to mention five: Burke
of Ireland, whose words " ring out the authentic
voice of the best political thought of the English
race," 2 and who gave us the " Conciliation with
America " ; Otis of Massachusetts, whose speech
against the Writs of Assistance was only the
beginning of his work ; Galloway of Pennsylvania,
the Loyalist who refused re-election to the 1775
Continental Congress when he had to choose
1 P. D. Harrison, The Stars and Stripes, Boston, 1906, p. 24;
ibid., p. 23 : " The Taunton flag was the regular English [Great
Britain's] flag, adopted by the union of the aforesaid crosses
upon a red field. Its significance lay in its motto, signifying
that there was at that time no thought of severance from the
mother country, their only thought being liberty of action ;
and it has historic value because it was the first to wave with
2 Woodrow Wilson, Mere Literature, Boston, 1900, p. 105.
12 THE PAN-ANGLES
between America and Great Britain ; Pownall
of England, Governor of Massachusetts 1757-
1760, and later Member of the British Parlia-
ment 1768-1780 ; and Franklin of Pennsylvania,
who with Pownall worked for Pan- Angle unity
on both sides of the Atlantic till he, like Galloway,
had to decide, and ended by choosing not Great
Britain but his own nation. The first was never
in America ; the second was never in England ;
the third saw England in his exile only after
American nationhood was established ; and the
fourth and fifth knew both England and America.
These men did not discover to Pan-Angles the
doctrine of no taxation without representation.
That, like many other alleged Americanisms, was
a Pan- Angle tenet already old. " The Principality
of Wales, said Galloway, the Bishopric of Durham,
and the Palatinate of Chester, laboured, just as
America, under the grievance of being bound by
the authority of Parliament without sharing the
direction of that authority. They petitioned for
a share, and their claim was recognized. When
Henry VIII., he continued, conquered Calais, and
settled it with English merchants, it was so incom-
patible with English liberty to be otherwise, that
Calais representatives were incorporated in the
English Parliament." 1 But these five men may
1 A. L. Burt, Imperial Architects, Oxford, 1913, p. 60. Henry
VIII. above should read Edward III. After the battle of Crecy
he besieged Calais in 1346. Cf. C. A. W. Pownall, Thomas
Pownall, London, 1 908, p. 204, who refers to the same ideas as
above, quoted from the 4th edition (1768) of Thomas Pownall's
The Administration of the Colonies. For maps of these four
historical areas, see W. R. Shepherd, Historical Atlas, Boston,
1911, pp. 74 and 84.
THE CIVILIZATION 13
be said to be among those who rediscovered this
tenet. As such they shared in the formation of
the nationhood not only of America, but also of
the five new nations of the Britannic world.
In 1801 Great Britain and Ireland were formed
into one political unit under the official title of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in
these pages referred to as the British Isles. And
still the distinctions between "part of" and "be-
longing to " were not understood in the British Isles.
Colonies and dependencies grew in importance and
size, many of the former having colonies and de-
pendencies of their own ; and still their radical
differences were not clearly recognized. Repeat-
edly such colonies as Canada, New Zealand, or
South Africa have reasserted the Pan-Angle
principle that one group of self-governing white
men cannot be the possession of another. So strong
has been the effect of this reiteration that now
there is some tendency in the British Isles to err
on the other side, and to consider India, the Malay
States, and other dependencies as though they hold,
or should hold, the same status as colonies.
Failure to distinguish between areas that are
self-governing and those that are not leads to a
loose application 01 terms which contributes to
further obscurity of thought. One recent instance
is striking in its subtle suggestiveness. Most of
the Malay Peninsula has been taken under the
surveillance of the British Isles. Gradually one
native ruler after another has been induced to
desire the friendship of the men who came from
the British Isles.
Some of the areas so acquired are dubbed
14 THE PAN-ANGLES
"States." 1 The collective government of this
group of " States " has been given the grandilo-
quent title " Federated Malay States." The Pan-
Angle student, familiar with federation in the
English-speaking nations which have already suc-
ceeded in their autonomous efforts, cannot but be
confused by hearing the word " federated " applied
to regions where self-government is not even spoken
of, and where the inhabitants take their political
orders from such officials as are appointed by
their white conquerors. The confusion is increased
when a battleship guaranteed with funds of the
Federated Malay States is presented to the govern-
ment of the British Isles, and is made the occasion
of fulsome speeches about the "loyalty" of the
" King's subjects " in the Federated Malay States.
The uninformed persons of the British Isles and
elsewhere may not realize that this gift of the
battleship Malaya means simply the imposition
of additional taxes on the conquered subjects that
" belong to " the conquering race. This is equally
true whether or not has been obtained the approval
of the figureheads that are known to the outside
world as the "native rulers." 2 Such an instance
1 For a definition of grades of government of dependencies of
Britannic nations, see An Analysis of the System of Government
throughout the British Empire, London, 1912, pp. 59-6 1.
2 Round Table, London, September 1913, p. 697: "It is not
true that she [Malaya] was offered as the result of pressure
by the British Government. She owes her existence partly to
the imagination of the Colonial Secretary in the Malay States,
who would by general agreement have been well advised to
keep his visions to himself instead of communicating them even
to sympathetic chiefs, but the Government in the ' Malay
States certainly received no suggestion on the subject from the
Colonial Office.' "
THE CIVILIZATION 15
fogs our perception of the problems pressing for
solution by the Britannic self-governing peoples.
This confused thinking and failure to appreciate
the difference between "part of" and "belonging
to" has delayed Pan -Angle progress. It led
to the disrupting American Revolution, to the
Canadian Rebellion of 1837, and to frictions less in
importance only because they were more promptly
remedied. It has been an unnecessary difficulty in
the way of all schemes proposed for closer Britannic
union. Are the self-governing colonies to be united
to each other and to the Mother Country ? — or to
these and to the dependencies besides ? The word
empire is variously used, and the thought under-
lying it sometimes vague. To some Britannic
writers it refers inclusively to every spot over
which the British flag flies, classing all colours
and conditions of men in one category. 1 Others
restrict its use to self-governing areas and peoples. 2
To still other minds it connotes lack of self-
government, and is applicable only to the depen-
dencies. 3 The "imperial parliaments" conjured
1 Ency. Brit., vol. iv. p. 606. "Ency. Brit." in this and subse-
quent notes refers to Encyclopaedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition,
Cambridge, England, 1910. Also Empire Movement (Non-Party,
Non-Sectarian, Non-Aggressive, and Non-Racial), London, 1913;
Leaflet 1 9, Shorter Catechism : " The British Empire is that
portion of the Earth's land surface which is subject to the
authority of King George."
2 J. R. Seeley, The Expansion of England, London, 1883,
p. 46 : " The English Empire is on the whole free from that
weakness which has brought down most empires, the weakness
of being a mere mechanical forced union of alien nationalities.
. . . the English Empire in the main and broadly may be said
to be English throughout."
3 Cf. G. R. Parkin, Imperial Federation, London, 1892, p. 248 :
16 THE PAN-ANGLES
up by these three definitions are vastly dissimilar.
And the New Zealander, for instance, would like
to know, before he becomes a party to one, whether
he is going to help rule India, or to sit in joint
deliberation with its representatives. 1
The British Isles and the countries that have
developed from British colonies form numerous
and interrelated political groups. The largest, and
now most important areas from a racial point of
view, are New Zealand, Australia, South Africa,
Newfoundland, Canada, the British Isles, and the
United States of America. In this discussion these
seven nations are considered as representing their
race. Their peoples are known respectively as
New Zealanders, Australians, South Africans, New-
foundlanders, Canadians, Britishers, and Americans.
These seven nations hold in actual or allied control
lands amounting to sixteen million square miles,
with a population of five hundred and thirty-five
million people, 2 or thirty and thirty-three per cent,
respectively of the entire surface, and the entire
" Unquestionably confusion of thought is caused by the care-
less use of the term Empire into which English people have
fallen. Applied to India and the crown colonies it is admissible,
. . . As a name for the ' slowly grown and crowned Republic '
of which the mother-land is the type and the great self-govern-
ing colonies copies, the term Empire is a misnomer, ..."
1 Richard Jebb, Studies in Colonial Nationalism, London, 1905,
p. 276 : " Indeed, the inclusion of India involves the reductio
ad absurdum of the imperial-federation theory which forms the
logical complement of the expansion-of-England theory."
2 Whitaker's Almanack, London, 1913, pp. 479, 6^6: 16,897,126
square miles and 535,753,952 persons.
THE CIVILIZATION 17
population of the world. Rome at her greatest
dominated a population of one hundred and twenty
millions. 1 In these seven nations more than one
hundred and forty-one millions are white people, 2
nearly all speaking the same language, and all
enjoying individual liberty of substantial equality.
They govern themselves and they govern other
peoples of other languages, colours, and ideals, to
a total of nearly four times the entire Roman
Empire. To the English-speaking whites these
subject -peoples owe their privileges, such as they
are. Success or failure in governing themselves
and others depends for these whites on their ability
so to control themselves that no foreign powers
can interfere with this world-wide domination.
The words " the English-speaking, self-governing
white people of New Zealand, Australia, South
Africa, Newfoundland, Canada, the British Isles,
and the United States of America," make a long
expression. No suitable abbreviation seems to
have been devised. The word Pan- Angle as a noun
and as an adjective is here offered.
1 An Analysis of the System of Government throughout the British
Empire, London, 1912, p. v, gives the Roman Empire population
as eighty-five millions and the British Empire as four hundred
and ten millions. But see Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of
the Roman Empire, London, 1782, vol. i. pp. 51, 52: "We are
informed, that when the emperor Claudius exercised the office
of censor, he took an account of six millions nine hundred and
forty-five thousand Roman citizens, ... it seems probable,
that there existed, in the time of Claudius, about twice as many
provincials as there were citizens, . . . and that the slaves were
at least equal in number to the free inhabitants of the Roman
world. The total amount of this imperfect calculation would
rise to about one hundred and twenty millions of persons."
2 Cf. post, p. 81, note 1.
18 THE PAN-ANGLES
There are various reasons why other words are
unsatisfactory. None in existence exactly denotes
the meaning which is here desired. Anglo-Saxon
may refer to the fusion of two stocks of conquering
immigrants who contributed men and vitality of
ideas to the present Pan- Angles. Sometimes, how-
ever, it has referred to only one of these tribes, the
Saxons, and designated them as the Saxons coloniz-
ing Angle-land, as opposed to the parent stock,
the Saxons of the continent. 1 Some writers have
employed the word loosely as a collective name for
all persons and ideas whose ancestry can be traced
to the British Isles. Again, a literature, a law, an
architecture, and a language is each called Anglo-
Saxon. Moreover, there is a people called Saxons,
and a land of Saxony, forming no part of the Pan-
Angle group. Anglican is one of our race names,
with its roots deep in the past, but it has already
a restricted meaning as a name for one of our
religious creeds. English is equally unsatisfactory.
It is properly applied to our common language and
to the people inhabiting a part of the British Isles.
Even this seemingly simple meaning has not been
faithfully preserved. Writers, otherwise careful,
speak of the English flag and the English Parlia-
ment, when they mean the flag and Parliament of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Robert Louis Stevenson, by a recent student and
author, was called an Englishman ! 2 This inexact-
ness is equally distasteful to those to whom the
appellation rightfully belongs, and to those who
have names of their own of which they are proud.
1 Cf. Ency. Brit., vol. ix. p. 588.
2 Price Collier, England and the English, London, 1911, p. 341.
THE CIVILIZATION 19
To avoid confusion, the word English in this
discussion is restricted as far as possible to the
language alone, or is used in the sense of belonging
to or originating in England. The term England
refers only to the geographic area bearing that
name. 1 The inhabitants of England are herein
referred to as Englanders. 2 It would be well to
have a name for these self-governing, English-
speaking white people that would direct the mind
back to the European stocks, whose bloods have
mingled in the British Isles and in these six other
nations, and that would suggest the origin of the
ideals and of the men that have made possible the
present world domination of these people. Failing
such an extensively composite and suggestive word,
resort is had to the name of one of these many
tribes. They are but one of many peoples that
went to our making. The Angles to-day exist no-
where as Angles. But they gave their name to
our tongue and to the country through which we
have inherited much. Every English-speaking
schoolboy knows Gregory's exclamation at the sight
of the fair-skinned children brought from Britain. 3
" Angels," they may have looked to the fervent
1 As to quoted passages, the reader is cautioned to distinguish
in each instance the meanings of the terms England, Britain,
Great Britain, British, Britannic, etc. The usage in one quota-
tion may differ from that in another and from that in the non-
quoted passages. The terminology in the latter has been
adopted to accord with the most accurate and consistent present
usage. The only innovation in terms here employed is the word
2 Sir Walter Scott, The Abbot, iv. : " I marvel what blood thou
art — neither Englander nor Scot," quoted in New English
Dictionary, Oxford, 1891 — "Englander."
3 Ency. Brit., vol. xii. p. 566.
20 THE PAN-ANGLES
priest, on their block in the Roman slave market ;
but, as " inheritors of the earth, successors to Rome
about to fall," he might prophetically have saluted
them. Their political descendants have abolished
slavery throughout a large part of the world. They
are the white people who speak English, citizens of
the autonomous nations : New Zealand, Australia,
South Africa, Newfoundland, Canada, the British
Isles, and the United States of America. Pan-
Angles they are here called, and their nations, Pan-
If an intelligent traveller from Mars were to tour
the earth to-day he would jot down in his note-book
that New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, New-
foundland, Canada, the British Isles, and the United
States were all inhabited by the same sort of people.
Their language, their forms of government, their
ways of thinking and of conducting the various de-
partments of life would lead him to think so. And
he would be right. The English-speaking traveller,
denied the point of view of an outsider, is prone to
take the likenesses for granted and to dwell on the
differences, using his own local group as a yard-stick
to measure the rest. Beneath his criticism, how-
ever, he is conscious that in these countries he is at
home in the same sense that he is an alien in all
others. Whichever of the seven he may be from,
he finds in each of the other six, men he can hardly
tell from himself, and realizes that in his own
political unit, whose oneness he never questions,
there are communities with natures more dissimilar
than are the natures of these seven nations. No
knowledge of history is needed for either him or
the Martian to conclude that while they use
different names to designate this part or that,
22 THE PAN-ANGLES
they are speaking always of one people and one
Of what stuffs the English-speaking people were
fashioned has already been explained. England,
when colonization began, held the germ of the
future Pan- Angles. Within two centuries Scotland
and Ireland were united with England and Wales
under one government, and the English language
and English ideals penetrated further and further
into those once Celtic strongholds. Welsh, Scots,
and Irish brought their contributions to our develop-
ment. They wrote English poems and English
books. They officered the army and built battle-
ships. They made and administered laws, and
furnished prime ministers for the British Isles.
Like the Englanders they too migrated to the new
Pan- Angle lands, seeking religious or political
liberty in some cases, but oftenest seeking the
means of a more satisfactory life. These they have
found. By this blending of all British Isles stocks
came new vitality to the Pan-Angles.
Three centuries ago this diffusion of Britishers
began, and it continues to-day in far greater numbers
than then. 1 Nor have they come less to the United
States since it became independent of Great Britain. 2
1 Whitaker's Almanack, London, 1913, p. 484 : 454,527 British
and Irish emigrants left the British Isles in 1911. Of these
80,770 went to Australasia; 30,767 to South Africa; 184,860
to Britannic North America; and 121,814 to the United States.
2 A. L. Burt, Imperial Architects, Oxford, 1913, pp. 123-124:
" In sixty years (1815-1876) eight and a half million people had
emigrated from Great Britain. Of these only three million settled
in the Colonies. The rest went to the United States. . . ."
THE PEOPLE 23
A French student divides the American people into
two groups : those whose ancestors were in the
United States previous to 1830, and hence almost
totally British, and those descended from persons
immigrating since that time. The former, accord-
ing to his computation, comprises more than one-
half of the present population of the United States.
And of the latter, one-third at least are likewise of
British stock. A total of two-thirds, or perhaps
even of three-fourths, of the American people to-day
are, he concludes, the descendants of Britishers. 1
The Irish he considers an important element. Of
the result of the mingled immigrations of the Irish
and other Celts with the Scandinavians and
Germans, an American student says : " When
we remember that it was the crossing of the
Germanic and the Celtic stocks that produced the
English race itself, we are obliged to assume that
the future American people will be substantially
the same human stuff that created the English
common law, founded parliamentary institutions,
established American self-government, and framed
the Constitution of the United States." 2 Of all
Pan- Angles a tremendous majority are of British
descent. Of all Pan- Angles outside the British Isles
a majority are still of British descent ; and theirs
has been the influence that has made six new nations
vastly alike, and like, also, to the Mother Country.
In some instances, notably in Canada and in
South Africa, the Pan -Angles found on their
1 Pierre Leroy-Beaulieu, Les Etats-Unis au Vingtieme Siecle,
Paris, 1904, pp. 25-26.
2 F. H. Giddings, Democracy and Empire, New York, 1900, pp.
24 THE PAN-ANGLES
arrival other peoples, sprung from European stocks,
firmly rooted to the land. Descendants of these
first settlers still form communities apart, in which
one hears English less often than French or Taal,
as the case may be ; much as one finds communities
in the British Isles where only a form of Celtic is
spoken. In other places, too, as in New York and
London, are little foreign nuclei engaged in some
particular trade, where a man can live and earn his
wage and know no English. These are, however,
the remarked exceptions.
British blood, moreover, has not in the meantime
been stagnant. Through these centuries, as from
earliest history, it has been constantly enriched and
invigorated by admixtures from the continent of
Europe. To the British Isles, South Africa,
Newfoundland, Canada, and the United States,
non - British peoples have come. Even New
Zealand and Australia, almost purely British as
they are, have their French and German settle-
ments respectively. In the British Isles the
reception and absorption of foreign stocks has been
unspectacular. Individuals, or from time to time
groups, seeking the larger tolerance of England,
have taken up an abode there. One has but to
observe and listen in the streets to be convinced
that foreign invaders, though with no hostile intent,
still land on British soil. Outside the British Isles,
this replenishing of the British stock by " foreign "
immigrants often presents features that are spectacu-
lar — especially where the bulk of the foreigners
now arrive — in the United States and Canada. 1
1 Round Tab le, London, September 1913, p. 723: "Last year
the United States received immigrants from other countries
THE PEOPLE 25
The immigrant often comes with no ability to
speak English or to understand the habits of mind
and forms of government of those who do. He
may never have been proudly conscious of any
nationality. But in an amazingly brief length of
time, we find him taking his place among his
Pan- Angle fellows and conducting himself as one
of them. In one generation he is transformed into
This process of assimilation was formerly un-
conscious on the part of the receiving nations.
Now, as the task has grown more stupendous,
special machineries in the way of day and night
schools and settlement clubs and classes have been
devised in the larger centres, and are maintained
at the expense of the public. The immigrant,
safely arrived, finds himself still outside the unyield-
ing wall of the English language. He cannot ask
for food or work. Even those from his former
country talk English together, and jeer at his
ignorance. By hard experience and whatever help
is offered, he qualifies himself in this first requisite.
With his English he acquires much else. He
learns words which express ideas peculiar to Pan-
Angle psychology. From the words he progresses
to the ideas themselves. Thus he learns somewhat
of the theory of law and government, and of the
aspirations and ideals, and of the expected privileges
that have evolved with this language. The pride
of the Pan- Angle comes over him, and a faith in
those precepts of individual freedom of which he
equal to three-quarters of one per cent, of the total population.
The influx to Canada was between six and seven per cent, of the
26 THE PAN-ANGLES
had never dreamed, it may be, until he learned to
read and talk of them in English. " An English-
man's house is his castle." Here is a promise of
privacy perhaps unknown in the land he has quitted.
" Government derives its just powers from the
consent of the governed." This is a long step from
the doctrine of the Divine Right of kings. Thus
with the language goes an atmosphere of many
things that are not to be translated, historical
heritages which the immigrant must substitute for
those of his birth. As he practises the new tongue
amid increased material and spiritual comforts, his
perception quickens and he is already fairly started
to become one of us. "I am an American," he
cries ; or " 1 am a Canadian " : more noisily, perhaps,
because his liberties are newer, but speaking none
the less from the same fountains of pride that in-
spire — " I am an Englishman."
On the second generation the same force
operates ; the stubbornness of the English-speaking
people for their language acts firmly as the
Inquisition and gently as a blessing. They attend
tree schools, read only books written in English
from the point of view of English-speaking people
and on subjects interesting to such people, Non-
Pan- Angle theories of government are non-existent ;
alien moral standards unheard of. The wall that
once hedged the father out, hedges the children in.
More often than not they cannot speak the tongue
their parents were born to. With Ivanhoc and
King Lear they are familiar; they quote Burns
and Wordsworth and Longfellow; after local
history they study that of England. The history
and poets of their fathers' native lands are foreign
THE PEOPLE 27
and unknown. If oratory be demanded, it is
Burke or Lincoln who furnish the words and
sentiments to young Hans and Pietro. 1
This is a consideration of English-speaking whites,
and as such is not concerned with the non- whites
of various races and various and inconsistent degrees
of subjection or citizenship, who dwell in Pan-
Angle countries. The aborigines of the United
States and Canada, of New Zealand and Australia,
are now problems of the past, solved according to
nature's rule of the survival of the fittest. They
could not live and increase in the environment the
white man was strong enough to throw about
them. The negro, numbering almost four times
the whites in South Africa 2 and one-eighth of
the whites in America, 3 is a problem yet
unsolved, for nature has not yet made it clear
which, all things considered, is the most fit. He
not only thrives in contact with whites, but with
his low standard of living multiplies more rapidly.
The Asiatic races are the problem of the future.
In every quarter we see a determination that it
shall not grow beyond its present incipient stage.
All Pan- Angle nations may not be able to obtain,
as Australia wishes to, an exclusively white popu-
1 Boston (Massachusetts) Transcript, November 19, 1913:
'•Chicago, Nov. 19 — Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg address,
which was delivered fifty years ago to-day, w r as read to-day to
the one million pupils in the public schools of Illinois. Pupils
above the sixth grade had memorized the address and recited it
at the hour at which President Lincoln began his speech.
To-night the speech will be repeated in nearly every night school
and social centre in the State."
2 Britannica Year Book, London, 1913, p. 703.
3 Cf. post, p. 8 1 , note 1 .
28 THE PAN-ANGLES
lation. But each nation, whenever non-whites
appear to endanger the success of white local self-
government, are able to exclude from the privilege
of the franchise any non-assimilable inhabitants.
In each of these seven nations white local autonomy
is recognized as necessary. The existence of these
problems in no way modifies the definition of Pan-
Angles as English-speaking whites who are the
self-governing forces in the seven above-named
The language Pan-Angles speak grew out of
the Germanic tongues of the Saxons, Angles,
Danes, and Jutes. Our most common and familiar
words have been in uninterrupted use since the
days of those invaders. 1 To this Teutonic basis
was added the French of the Northmen called
Normans. A proclamation of 1258 is sometimes
called the first specimen of English, 2 but its
resemblance to modern speech is not for the
uninstructed to discern. Through the thirteen,
fourteen, and fifteen hundreds English took on a
form more intelligible to us of to-day. In the
latter part of the fifteen hundreds a great poet and
playwright employed it so effectively that his
diction and style became a standard. 3 From the
same epoch dates the translation of the Bible and
its popular use. "The English version of the
Bible remains the noblest example of the English
tongue, while its perpetual use made it from the
1 Ency. Brit., vol. ix. p. 597.
2 Ibid., vol. ix. p. 594.
3 Ibid., vol. ix. p. 596.
THE PEOPLE 29
instant of its appearance the standard of our
Thus it came about that in the Mayflower and
other early emigrant ships was carried to the
new countries an English of authenticated stamp.
The standards then recognized are still recognized.
This was, however, the English of books and
education. Each shire of England in its own
speech bore witness to its past. Kent and York-
shire often could not understand each other, and
words used in one were unknown to the other.
The emigrating Englander carried with him
accordingly, besides the English as established
for educated men, the common dialect of his
neighbourhood. In the colonies these differences
tended to vanish under the influence of the press,
free schools, and easy methods of travel ; though
occasionally in a word, or here and there a pro-
nunciation, the delighted etymologist sees the
ghost of some local English usage, as in the
old Devon still spoken in Newfoundland. 2 In
England these local variations of speech have
persisted longer, and still puzzle the unaccustomed
ear. In America there still exist words and
expressions which when they left England were
in good usage, but which have there since been
dropped. Though the dictionaries of to-day call it
an Americanism, Shakespeare wrote : " Better far, I
guess, That we do make our entrance several ways." 3
1 J. R. Green, A Short History of the English People, London,
1898, vol. ii. p. 934.
2 J. G. Millais, Newfoundland and its Untrodden Ways, London,
1907, p. 339.
3 Henry VI., Pt. I., Act u., Scene i., line 29. Cf. John
Bartlett, Concordance of Shakespeare, London, 1894 — "Guess."
30 THE PAN-ANGLES
The variety and interest of the English language
does not lie alone in these historical survivals. It has
been, and still is, constantly enriched from outside
itself. In the colonies and dependencies, and in
foreign lands as well, the English language has
come in contact with practically all the tongues
of the earth. From these it has helped itself
according to need or fancy. The result gives
locally a strong dash of colour which inevitably
tends to tinge the whole. Ranch, trek, amok,
portage, taboo, tomahawk, coolie, — have long since
ceased to serve limited communities, and stand
acknowledged in our dictionaries besides words
of Saxon and Norman pedigrees. Spruit, kai, bila-
bong, — if not lost altogether will come to the same
dignity. Whether the new word is taken from
another language or coined from English roots as
local slang, the story of a growth in usage is the
same. The "tramp" and "sun-downer" may
consort together in any library with a " creeper,"
a "tenderfoot," and a "new chum." In language
usages we have no authority but our own desires.
Such is our language, a living thing growing
in parts, dying in parts, and ever ready to adapt
itself to local needs. It is, moreover, uniform,
as nearly as any living tongue can be uniform.
The peculiarities of speech observed in different
localities are enough to furnish picturesque touches
for a novel and humour to the stage, but never
Also Geoffrey Chaucer, "The Canterbury Tales, (A) The
Prologue," in The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, W. W.
Skeat ed., Oxford, 1894, vol. iv., line 82 : "Of twenty yeer of
age he was, I gesse." Ibid., line 117: "A forster was he, soothly,
as I gesse."
THE PEOPLE 31
enough to make even the slightest barrier between
any two regions. Even so it is a matter largely
of pronunciation and inflection. The writer who
would suggest the twangs and drawls, and indicate
the r's that are rolled or ignored, and the h's
insecure in position, has hard work with tortured
spelling to accomplish his end. To the art of
printing and all the publishing, useful and other-
wise, it has made possible ; to popular education
and the reading it stimulates, we owe a uniform
written language. Had the colonists gone forth
and builded their nations prior to the days of
type and presses and cheap books, the Kansan and
Tasmanian might have been to-day as linguistically
remote from each other as both are now from the
Anglo-Saxons of Bede's days. Instead, though
they may " labor " or " labour " according to fancy,
and each have his preference about going to
"jail" or to "gaol," they are able to pool their
literatures and draw from a common fund. To
increasingly comfortable and rapid means of trans-
portation, whether of the tourist, the British
bagman or American drummer or the job hunter,
we are indebted for our homogeneous speech.
And in that common speech lies possibly the
strongest tie between Pan-Angles and the one
that makes all others potent.
Every Pan- Angle is in instant communication
with every other Pan- Angle wherever he may meet
him. Through books, newspapers, and magazines
written in his mother tongue, he may be in con-
stant touch with the doings of the whole Pan-
Angle world. American youths study Geikie's
Geology in their schools ; New Zealanders buy
32 THE PAN-ANGLES
and read the Atlantic Monthly ; and the Century
Dictionary is in use at Oxford. Men like Lord
Bryce and Admiral Mahan write on matters vital
to the existence of Pan- Angle civilization ; and
attention and esteem are theirs from every
thoughtful English-speaking man. Through the
pulpit, the lecture platform, and the stage, the
people of each nation daily form first-hand ac-
quaintance with the representatives of each of
the other six — no bar of translation or interpre-
tation standing between. Of the popular authors
and novelists, one-half of their readers probably
hardly know which are American, which Britannic.
Thus our common language produces a continuous
interchange of thought which makes for mental
unity and keeps us one people.
Through this world-wide interchange of thought
we see not only each other, but ourselves, from
the point of view of each other. Family criticism
is often harsh when most friendly ; and among our-
selves we speak our minds freely, whether it be
tolls, boundaries, or table manners under discussion.
Frank opinions are sometimes resented. "I do
not talk through my nose," says the American.
" Nor do I use my a's like a cockney," retorts
the Australian. " I have no accent," rejoins the
Englander with an unmistakable drawl. " Look
at your police and your yellow press," say six of
us, and the American stands ashamed. " Look at
the abject misery of your poor and the waste of
your fertile lands," and the Englander winces.
" Look at your defenceless condition," and New-
foundlanders, Canadians, New Zealanders, Aus-
tralians, and South Africans all admit the indict-
THE PEOPLE 33
ment. Mutual criticism is accordingly not without
profit. In each other's virtues and failings we find
models and warnings, for our ideals are in the
main the same, and to no foreign opinion are we
so sensitive as to the opinion of other members of
our own family.
In Pan- Angle nations there are to-day more
people speaking English than have ever before in
the world's history spoken one tongue. 1 But even
outside of those seven nations, English ranks as the
world language, the one most useful for commerce,
travel, or education. Some maintain that it is the
richest language known. On a computation of
words that may perhaps be so. 2 Others claim it is
easy to learn. No one calls it easy to spell. Some
say English-speaking people cannot learn other
languages ; others say they will not. The story is
1 The world contains one hundred and sixty million English-
speaking people, according to Whitakers Almanack, London,
1913, p. 99- Of the one hundred and twenty millions computed
to have been under the control of the Roman Empire only a
portion spoke Latin.
2 The Outlook, New York, August 9, 1913: " Four new
words are added to the English language every day, if we may
accept the dictionaries as a standard of measurement. During
the last three centuries the rate of growth of the dictionaries
has been 1500 words a year. In l6l6 John Bullokar . . .
published his Compleat English Dictionary, with 5080 words. . . .
There are now in fact 600,000 English words, but about one-
quarter of this number are rare scientific terms or words that
are obsolete or obsolescent." Cf. Boston (Massachusetts) Tran-
script, May 28, 1913, Franklin Clarklin, a A Supreme Court of the
Language " : " This year will see the issue of an English language
dictionary containing 450,000 words. It is said that the largest
German dictionary including personal words has 300,000 words,
a French one 210,000 words, a Russian and an Italian 140,000
words each, and a Spanish 120,000 words."
34 THE PAN-ANGLES
told of a man for many years the only British
resident on 1500 miles of Arabian coast. He
knew less than a dozen words of Arabic. " How
do you carry on your trade ? " someone asked.
" Oh," he replied, " the beggars have got to learn
English." 1 Similar is Mr. Dooley's promise to the
Filipinos: " An' we'll larn ye our language, because
'tis aisier to larn ye ours than to larn oursilves
That the wide knowledge of its language is a
source of advantage to a nation, Benjamin Franklin
pointed out in a letter to Noah Webster in 1789:
" The Latin language, long the vehicle used in
distributing knowledge among the different nations
of Europe, is daily more and more neglected ; and
one of the modern tongues, viz. the French, seems
in point of universality to have supplied its place.
It is spoken in all the courts of Europe ; and most
of the literati, those even who do not speak it, have
acquired knowledge enough of it to enable them
easily to read the books that are written in it.
This gives a considerable advantage to that nation ;
it enables its authors to inculcate and spread
throughout other nations such sentiments and
opinions on important points as are most conducive
to its interests, or which may contribute to its
reputation by promoting the common interests of
mankind. It is perhaps owing to its being written
in French, that Voltaire's treatise on * Toleration '
has had so sudden and so great an effect on the
bigotry of Europe, as almost entirely to disarm it.
The general use of the French language has like-
wise a very advantageous effect on the profits of
1 Manchester (England) Guardian, March 24>, 1913.
THE PEOPLE 35
the bookselling branch of commerce, . . . And at
present there is no capital town in Europe without a
French bookseller's shop corresponding with Paris.
" Our English bids fair to obtain the second
place. The great body of excellent printed sermons
in our language, and the freedom of our writings
on political subjects, have induced a number of
divines of differents sects and nations, as well as
gentlemen concerned in public affairs, to study it ;
so far at least as to read it. And if we were to
endeavor the facilitating its progress, the study
of our tongue might become much more general." *
By 1856 the use of our language had progressed
so that Emerson thought it "destined to be the
universal language of men." 2
That we who talk English go about with an
assumption of superiority, there is abundant testi-
mony. In 1676 an English ship visited Mauritius,
then a possession of Holland. A modern historian
quotes from the records of the Dutch Governor :
" This breed imagine the Hollanders are of a lower
stock, naturally inferior, who ought always to be
humbly and servilely at their disposal." 3 A
Bostonian, who sailed from his home port for
Liverpool on news of the ratification of the treaty
of Ghent, mentions a British army officer with
whom he chatted in London in 1815 : " The
colonel complimented the American troops in a
curious manner by observing that they were brave
1 John Bigelow, The Complete Works oj Benjamin Franklin,
New York, 1888, vol. x. pp. 177-178.
2 R. W. Emerson, English Traits, 1856, Boston reprint, 1894-,
3 Albert Pitot, TEylandt Mauritius, 1598-1710, Port- Louis,
He Maurice, 1905, p. 178.
36 THE PAN-ANGLES
and it was not to be wondered at since they
were 'descendants of Englishmen.' It required
all my gravity to make an acknowledging bow for
this compliment ! I frequently found that the
bravery displayed by the Americans in the last
war was accounted for from this source." 1 " They
[the Scots] are bumptious, very bumptious," says
Goldwin Smith. " They try to force their Burns
down our throats." 2 "Do not, above all things,"
counsels an official circular addressed to British
emigrants to Canada, "try to impress on your
Canadian employer how much better we do things
in England, for it will only make him dislike
you and perhaps not care to keep you in his
employ. Canadians, too, often resent criticism of
their country or its methods, but you should
remember that they have been working in Canada
long before you were born, and that they are more
likely than a stranger like yourself to know what
suits that country best." 3 The American Ambas-
sador, speaking in London in 1913, said " he was
asked almost every day by the kindly people whom
he met — and he could not too strongly emphasize
the word ' kindly ' since he had come to England —
how they were getting on in the United States
assimilating the endless hordes of people from all
lands who came to their shores. He did not wish
1 J. B. Crocker, ed., England in 1815, as Seen by a Young
Boston Merchant : Being the Reflections and Comments of Joseph
Ballard on a Trip through Great Britain in the year of Waterloo,
Boston, 1913, p. 22.
2 Arnold Haultain, Goldwin Smith His Life and Opinions,
London, p. 162.
3 Quoted, The Times Weekly Edition, London, October 17,
THE PEOPLE 37
to boast. He was a humble man from the humblest
of countries. (Laughter.) But he was delighted
to assure them that the Anglo-Saxon, or British,
race, who settled the United States first, shaped
its destinies, directed its energies, according to
their conscience, against their own Motherland,
and developed themselves and the great territory
which they subdued, to this day, no matter how
many men came from how many lands, still ruled
it and led it. (Cheers.) And there was no time
in sight when that would have changed. Every
President of the United States had been of English
or Scottish blood dominantly. Out of 121 mayors
of cities only 1 1 per cent, had names which showed
that they or their predecessors came from countries
other than the United Kingdom. Only 14 per
cent, of the representative men who took part in
the government of the United States in the House
of Representatives or the Senate bore foreign names,
which left 86 per cent, who came from the United
Kingdom. The Anglo-Saxon was quite as much
the leader of men in the great Republic as he was
in the great United Kingdom. That was not a
boast ; it was a natural phenomenon. It was
destiny, and they could not help it if they would.
Americans deserved no particular praise for it.
They believed, just as Englishmen believed, that
they were born to rule the world." 1 "That com-
placency which never deserts a true-born English-
man " ■ speaks wherever a Pan- Angle voice is raised.
1 The Times Weekly Edition, London, July 25, 1913.
Account of Anglo-Saxon Club Dinner, July 18, 1913.
2 R. W. Emerson, English Traits, 1856, Boston reprint, 1894,
p. 280. Cf. ibid., p. 145: "An English lady on the Rhine
38 THE PAN-ANGLES
Foreign testimony on this point in our character is
unanimous, but no foreigner can demonstrate so
vividly the arrogance of our self-satisfaction as do
we in our every act and attitude. Moreover, what
do most of us care about what foreigners think?
Was it not Dr. Johnson who said, " All foreigners
are mostly fools "V
As Pan- Angles we are, in short, the cream of
the earth. As Britishers, Americans or Australians
we are the cream of the cream. As Englanders,
Missourians, or Queenslanders we are something
even more superlative. As Londoners, St. Louisans,
or Brisbanians, — words fail to express the height of
our self-approval. The Englander says little on
the subject but, like the calm ungainsayable fog of
his habitat, simply is. If called from his high
estate to pass judgment, he characterizes the rest
of the world as " beastly peculiar." " Colonials,"
in this term he lumps also the inhabitants of the
United States, are to him unfortunates, having
"jolly rotten luck to live way off out there." The
American, more nervously pitched, raises his voice
and talks long about his bigness. " You call that
a river ? " he indicates the Thames. " Why, if we
had a damp streak like that in one of our fields in
Iowa, we'd tile it just to keep from getting our
feet wet crossing." The Australian, conscious that
little attention has been paid him as yet, and con-
scious too that his " potentialities " are really great,
hearing a German speaking of her party as foreigners, exclaimed,
' No, we are not foreigners ; we are English ; it is you that are
1 Cf. Price Collier, England and the English, London, 1911,
THE PEOPLE 39
aggressively balances a chip for the inspection of
critics. His sheep, his harbour, his apples, his stars
— woe to anyone who fails to acquiesce in their
paramount excellence ! " And after all," he sighs,
returned from the other fair places of the earth,
"after all, there is only one Sydney."
Such are our local prides, or such at least do
they appear in their most blatant types. "The
habit of brag runs through all classes " * wherever
we live. Those of us who observe the good form
of appearing tolerably meek-minded, are perhaps
at heart no more so. Why, then, do we smile
tolerantly at all the world and take no offence at
each other ? Because each is confident of his own
place in the sun, and confident too that the Pan-
Angles, although he may not use that term, by
virtue of these very local prides, are one in their
desire and determination to maintain their civiliza-
tion against all others who are not of our language
and our ways.
An American was one day asked by a cutlery
salesman from Birmingham (England), " Are you
not humiliated by having no national language ? "
" We have one," was the prompt reply ; "it is
English." So would have spoken a Canadian or a
Newfoundlander, a South African, a New Zealander,
or an Australian. That is one of our prides. Our
language is ours. It reflects our many-rooted
origins, our varied and severally branched histories,
our constantly converging growths. It binds us
to the ideals of our kind. Its very name takes us
in imagination to the infancy of our race, where
1 R. W. Emerson, English Traits, 1856, Boston reprint, 1894,
40 THE PAN-ANGLES
from subservience to the wills of others the in-
dividual emerged. " The English have given im-
portance to individuals, a principal end and fruit
of every society. Every man is allowed and
encouraged to be what he is, and is guarded in the
indulgence of his whim. ' Magna Charta,' said
Rushworth, ' is such a fellow that he will have no
sovereign.' By this general activity and by this
sacredness of individuals, they have in seven
hundred years evolved the principles of freedom.
It is the land of patriots, martyrs, sages and bards,
and if the ocean out of which it emerged should
wash it away, it will be remembered as an island
famous for immortal laws, for the announcement
of original right which make the stone tables of
liberty." 1 To acknowledge the relation of America
to the land of these struggles and their earliest
successes can never be humiliating. England's
past belongs to us all, and to-day England is one
of us. There, was cradled the individualism of
our Teuton forbears that has grown into a civilizing
world-wide domination. We all have helped to
nurture and shield it. We are as seven guardians
whose harmony is secured not only because they
are one in aim and method but because being one
in language they are bound into understanding.
The Pan- Angle enjoys the highest standard of
living known to any comparable number of people
in the world, either formerly or to-day. If civiliza-
tion depends on the margin of wealth above mere
1 R. W. Emerson, English Traits, 1856, Boston reprint, 1894,
THE PEOPLE 41
means of existence, Pan-Angles are the most
civilized of the races.
Given a hypothetical community possessed only
of such material resources that all the energies of
every member must be used to provide food and
protection from the elements, and there is pre-
sented the lowest possible standard of living.
Anything lower would mean starvation, ex-
posure, and death. Add but ever so little to
those resources, so that some few, still fed and
sheltered, may employ their energies in other
ways, and they may become scientists and prolong
the lives of their fellows and teach them more
productive methods of food getting; they may
become artists and poets for the delight and
recreation of the rest ; they may devise laws and
systems of government to regulate labour and
control wealth ; and may develop certain in-
stinctive cravings into hopeful religions. The
community has now taken its first steps toward
what we call civilization. Add further to the
resources, increase the amount of energy that
can be spent in channels other than the main-
tenance of life, and there is developed a complex
organism, with churches and schools, music and
literature, steam transportation, electric machinery,
and contrivances of many other sorts to make life
comfortable, enjoyable, and inspiring. Between
this hypothetical primitive community and civili-
zation as the Pan- Angles understand it are many
stages, some of them occupied to-day by our
neighbours whose material resources have not
increased to the extent of ours. Now, of all the
world, the people having most time and strength
42 THE PAN-ANGLES
after their physical necessities are secured are the
The per capita wealth and the per capita land
holdings of the Pan-Angles are greater than those
of any other comparable number of people. Their
diet is more generous, more costly, and more
varied. Their apparel is more expensive, and
their housing more capacious and more comfort-
able. They are able to support a greater number
of instructors and entertainers in their writers,
artists, and musicians. Hardly an act of their
lives, hardly an article they use, but has some
embellishment not strictly necessary to life and
utility. With all this the Pan- Angles, so much
have they beyond the mere means of existence,
furnish lavishly the pleasures of the so-called
" higher life " to their own souls. They study
philosophies and ponder the rights of man; they
support the weak and economically useless with
the proceeds of their own labour. They send of
their wealth to other civilizations, as missionary
reports testify, trying to contribute to their wel-
fare. And with all this spending, they still have
at their disposal such resources that they increase in
numbers from generation to generation, and each
generation has more than the generation before.
The reason for this high standard of living is
not far to seek. We have all this because we
have been strong enough to take land, the source
of food and shelter, the basis of all life and
wealth. The Teutons came and took England;
the Normans came and took England ; and Pan-
Angles since have taken land in every continent
and throughout the seas : from the bleak coast
THE PEOPLE 43
and rich shore-fisheries of the Labrador to the
fertile plains of the Missouri and the grassy
ranges of Otago. In Canada and the United
States for years land was the prize that the
country offered to pioneers, giving thousands of
acres in parcels of one hundred and sixty as long
as they lasted. From their land and sea- coast
holdings, the Pan- Angles have taken the yield of
fish and grain and meat ; and those who laboured
in getting food produced enough for themselves
and for their fellows who were working in other
ways. Besides food, these lands provided many
other of the essentials of the standard of living
Other lands rich in promise came under the
Pan- Angle gaze. Often there seemed the best
of reasons why we should not go and live there.
We thereupon set up additional factories at home
and made cloth and knives above our own de-
mands to send out to those countries in trade.
By working at home in smoky cities we were able
to gather the food and the luxuries we wanted
from all parts of the world. These lands we have
taken into our custody in order to guarantee our
trade supremacy. Unproductive spots here and
there, such as Gibraltar, Aden, Singapore, and Hong
Kong, we have been forced to hold to facilitate
and protect our trade. In the main we acquired
some very valuable pieces — the most valuable in
sight some of our rivals have thought. We never
know how valuable a place may be, and, con-
versely, we never appreciate what a nuisance a
place may be until after we have taken it. Yet,
the nuisances we try to turn to useful account.
44 THE PAN-ANGLES
Land to occupy or to trade with, the Pan-Angles
have been able to acquire because they were strong.
France, Spain, and Holland wanted North America ;
the Pan-Angles took it. France wanted New
Zealand and Australia ; the Pan- Angles took them.
Portugal and Holland both had ports at Cape
Town before the British flag flew there. And as
to dependencies or trade lands, India, Mauritius,
Malacca, Ceylon, the Philippines, were all wrested
from other nations, while hosts of islands in every
sea fell undisputedly to us, only because no other
powers felt strong enough to contest the point. If
at any time we had been unable to take these, we
should have been unable to grow and increase our
standard of living to its present degree of comfort.
There is among us to-day a great abhorrence of
war. We should like to abolish it together with
pain, death, and all other evils. The human race
has already learned and accomplished much toward
that end. Doubtless more will be revealed. That
our presence here, however, and that of our children
to come, is due to the efforts our fathers displayed,
seems evident. Perhaps we ought not to risk that
heritage too lightly.
Not a single Pan- Angle is willing to reduce his
race numbers. He wishes his children to live and to
have children in turn. Not a single Pan- Angle is
willing to reduce his standard of living. He wishes
for himself more leisure, more nourishing and
cleaner food, greater safety in all his employments.
He wishes to see no poverty and no discomfort.
He is busy passing laws in all his legislatures to-
day in his efforts to attain all this.
What the Pan- Angle has, he got by taking land
THE PEOPLE 45
and making the best use he knew of it. For years
the British Isles alone of the Pan- Angle nations
sent out migrants. For years the British Isles
alone was the manufacturing country, the others
growing food for themselves and for export. The
United States is now sending out migrants ; it is
likewise sending out less and less food. Pownall
foresaw that " when the field of agriculture shall
be filled up . . . the moment that the progress of
civilisation, carried thus on its natural course, is
ripe for it, the branch of manufactures will take its
shoot and will grow and increase with an astonish-
ing exuberancy." 1 The same future doubtless faces
the other five of us. New lands are less easy of ac-
quisition in these days. We have recently enlarged
our holdings in the neighbourhood of the two poles,
but the opportunities even there grow fewer. Lands
are becoming more thickly populated and better
defended. But beyond that, we have developed
certain scruples that our forefathers in their takings
did not know. Only a need equal to theirs will
perhaps impel us to similar exercise of force. That
need will not come until our standard of living is
threatened. Colonizing apart, there is left to us
trade ; and trade apart, we still have our present
lands to develop to their highest point. This pro-
blem of development is now receiving our best
attention. We support costly bureaus and experi-
ment stations to discover and teach us the means
of so intensively cultivating that we may get the
highest possible yield from our land. We shall
not relax these efforts.
But as we utilize our lands and increase our
1 C. A. W. Pownall, Thomas Pownall, London, 1908, p. 401.
46 THE PAN-ANGLES
trade, other civilizations will be desiring to raise
the standards of living among their increasing
populations. They will need more land. They
will covet some of our little-used pieces, Northern
Canada or Northern Australia, lands we mean to
develop ourselves. No Pan-Angle is minded to
part with them. Our rivals, as they grow, will
need more trade in order to keep more factories
busy to buy more food. They may covet our
markets, so that rice and tea and rubber from our
present possessions may come to them. If at any
time we lose land or trade, by so much must part
of our numbers suffer, must be less well housed,
and less well nourished, less well cared for if sick.
No Pan- Angle sees his way to closing up his fac-
tories or to putting himself in a position where he
and his children can build no more. More babies
mean a demand for more food, and we hope to
give them more advantages of every sort. The
only way to retain our lands and our trade is to be
strong enough to protect them. There is no cheaper
nor more effective strength than in co-operation.
The individualism of the Pan- Angles is rooted in
our earliest struggles for personal liberty, and its
first successes were won far beyond the confines of
known history. The institutions in which it is
expressed we trace back through English to Teuton
practices, where they are lost from sight. How
they have been modified and enlarged since, and
what we have wrought under the impulse of this
dominant characteristic is abundantly recorded.
It is the mainspring of all our achievement.
The Pan- Angles collectively are conservative
and slow to move. They respect tradition and law,
and break with the past less easily than more
volatile peoples. The individual Pan- Angle, on
the other hand, makes often his own law, dis-
regarding and outrunning the law of his group.
It is a trait we approve ; the Robin Hoods ashore
and the Drakes afloat have our sympathy, as well
as often our gratitude for the substantial gifts their
individual enterprise has left us. No theory, no
agreed-upon plan has led us in our various en-
deavours, but always the success of some man who
went that way on his own. Adventurers have
gone out across trackless land or water wastes, and
we have followed with our commerce and settlers.
48 THE PAN-ANGLES
Idealists have gone questing for religious or civil
liberty, and we, guided by their footprints, draw
bills of rights, reform our property laws, and our
suffrage, and remove religious disabilities.
From less than sixty thousand our holdings
have increased to more than sixteen million square
miles, 1 through the spirit of individual men. Each
acquisition presents similar features. A Pan- Angle
wanders off and finds something he wishes. He
takes it. Sometimes he calls on the homestayers
for aid. Sometimes they give it ; often not.
Seven times the British Isles refused to acknow-
ledge that the British flag flew over New Zealand ; 2
and the Queenslanders, who in 1883 raised the
Britannic colours in New Guinea, were ordered
from London to lower them again. 3 The pioneer
puts the best he has into the struggle, for far from
being an altruist with one eye on a grateful
posterity, he is fighting for his own valued
possession, whether it be land, the right to trade,
or to collect copra in comfort. If there is room
for more than one, and the chance of success
promising, other adventurous individuals join him.
Together they at last attract the ear of the home
government which, if induced to interfere, does so
to protect the interests of its citizens — or subjects,
as the case may be — from outside encroachment.
The sway of the Pan-Angles has thus been
1 Modern England, 50,916 square miles, and all Pan- Angle
nations and their dependencies, 16,897,126. See post, p. 81,
2 Round Table, London, February 1911, p. 207 : "1817, 1823,
1825, 1828, 1832, 1835, 1836."
3 A. W. Jose, History of Australasia, Sydney, 1911, p- 187.
extended — a little. 1 The next little will be added
in a similar manner. No one plans for it, but in
some opportune moment the leader arises.
In some cases elaborately organized companies
with directors and stockholders seem to take the
place of the individual. That is only seeming.
Whether it be the East India Company, or the
Hudson's Bay Company, or the British South
Africa Company, there is always a Rhodes at the
heart of it. And half of its success in the end
depends on agents who take their own counsel and
work by themselves, thereby extending their com-
pany's power, as the company extends the nation's.
That this character was recognized from the begin-
ning witnesses the Royal Charter granted " the
Governor and Company of Adventurers of England
trading into Hudson's Bay." 2
Of the men who failed to make good, who could
not take what they wanted, we hear little. Their
dreaming and daring, their judgment and fortitude,
are their own affair ; they are part of the unenlisted
legion our individualism has produced. A sympa-
thetic editor in America writes as follows of
a young English individualist in Somaliland :
" Richard Conyngham Corfield . . . was stationed
in one of the most inaccessible and undesirable of
Britain's many wild lands. He hoped to make a
name for himself, to conquer a little empire of his
own and restore it to his country, to humiliate the
Mad Mullah who had humiliated England, and to
earn promotion. So, on his own responsibility, he
1 Cf. Ency. Brit., vol. xxvi. pp. 692-693, on the story of Texas.
2 For an account of which, see Beckles Willson, The Great
Company (1667-1871), London, 1900.
50 THE PAN-ANGLES
led his little army against the fanatic horde of the
Mullah. The spirit of adventure moved him as it
moved the heroes of the early days of British empire
building. He lost, as many another adventurer has
lost ; had he won he would have been remembered
for some time. But, having lost all, even his name
will be forgotten within a twelvemonth." 1
Extended holdings in personal liberty have been
won for us by this same individualism. A cargo
of tea was stolen and maliciously destroyed, and
now Pan- Angles feel certain they have the right
to vote their own taxes. The city of Birmingham,
England, in 1819, elected a representative to the
Parliament of the British Isles, in which it was
allowed no representation. 2 In 1832 a Reform Bill
gave them and all their neighbours a share in
parliamentary legislation. John Brown was hanged
for " treason, and conspiring and advising with
slaves and other rebels, and murder in the first
degree." 3 But within four years slavery had been
abolished in the United States, and every school
child in America for years gave vocal testimony
that, while their hero's body lay " a-mouldering in
the grave," his soul went " marching on."
With individualism goes self-reliance — having
these we are also self-sufficient. We want our
ways of doing things, and are ready to sacrifice a
great deal to get them, for we know our ways are
right. We want room in which to express our-
selves. Daniel Boone left his Kentucky home
1 The Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cleveland, Ohio, September 2,
1913; but cf. United Empire, London, December 1913, p. 934
concerning a statue to his memory at Berbera.
2 Ency. Brit, vol. ix. p. 556. 3 Ibid., vol. iv. p. 660.
when a neighbour moved to within twenty miles
of him, because the country was becoming too
thickly settled. Others like him trudged mile by
mile across the whole North American continent. 1
With them went Pan- Angle women. 2 In the con-
flict for the possession of North America, the Pan-
Angles won. They were still of true British blood,
while the French were largely Indian. 3 The
French had adapted themselves to the country,
while the Pan- Angles had adapted the country to
themselves. Arrived after successive generations
at the Pacific Coast they were still Pan- Angles
with their essential characteristics unchanged. In
the back-blocks of New Zealand and Australia,
and the table-lands of Rhodesia, men of the same
type are living to-day. If their individualism is
intensified and in their own opinion improved, it is
because they have plenty of room. The pushing
American is but the individual Britisher let loose in
a larger field. These men may be described in the
words Pownall used of the Americans : " An un-
abated application of the powers of individuals and
a perpetual struggle of their spirits sharpens their
wits and gives constant training to the mind. . . .
This turn of character, which in the ordinary
1 Pierre Leroy-Beaulieu, Les Etats-Unis au Fingtieme Steele,
Paris, 1904, pp. 37, 38, claims that the country to the south of
the long Canadian frontier was opened up by successive waves
of people of the same blood, the pioneers being almost entirely
sons of pioneers.
2 Ency. Brit., vol. xxvii. p. 691 '• "The new life bore most
hardly upon women ; and, if the record of woman's share in the
work of American colonization could be fully made up, the price
paid for the final success would seem enormous."
3 W. M. West, Modern History, Boston, rev. ed., 1907, p. 300.
52 THE PAN-ANGLES
occurrences of life is called inquisitiveness, and
which, when exerted about trifles goes even to a
degree of ridicule in many instances, is yet, in
matters of business and commerce, a most useful
and efficient talent." 1 An Australian, as he de-
scribes himself, in his roomiest of our nations, " is
little other than a transplanted Briton, with the
essential characteristics of his British forbears, the
desire for freedom from restraint, however, being
perhaps more strongly accentuated." 2
With all his individualism the Pan- Angle has a
gift for combining. He would rather act alone.
But when desirous of results he cannot obtain by
himself, he is not afraid of uniting with his fellows.
In order to combine effectively, mutual confidence
is necessary. We have that trust ability. Indeed,
we use the very word "trust" to designate in
popular parlance certain combinations : " the money
trust," "the labour trust," and the multitudinous
other smaller and lesser combinations, down to the
facetiously referred to "plumbers' trust," which
all appear huge in direct proportion to the distance
of the spectator. Viewed with the eye of the
insider, such aggregations of capital and power
are merely the co-operations of many individuals
to produce results — it may be the building of a
railroad or the distribution of a food — that no one
could accomplish alone. It has been the outsider
who objected to their power. To our combinations
in the matter of government few of us object,
1 C. A. W. Pownall, Thomas Pownall, London, 1908, pp. 400-
401. Cf. Edmund Burke in Conciliation with America, par. 37.
2 Yearbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, Melbourne, No. 4,
1911, p. 122.
because we all are insiders. Much of our progress
in the path of individual freedom has come through
The barons combined to secure Magna Carta.
New Zealanders use their government (the com-
bination at their disposal) to remedy injustices
against their individual members. 1 The thirteen
American states, each bristling with a sense of
individualism, recognized that they could secure
this precious possession only through joining to-
gether. Benjamin Franklin had voiced their situa-
tion earlier, when he said : "If we do not hang
together, we shall hang separate." Their first
attempt at combination had to be discarded be-
cause they were not hanging together firmly
enough. But from 1789 to 1914, their second
effort has exhibited to the world the largest volun-
tary political association as yet seen, proving a new
method of adjusting local needs and differences.
It has succeeded in so much that it has bound
together a nation, or an assemblage of nations
1 J. E. Le Rossignol and W. D. Stewart, State Socialism in
New Zealand, London , p. 17: "The people of New
Zealand are not doctrinaires, and the academic question as to
the proper spheres of governmental and individual activity is
seldom discussed. The State has taken up one thing after
another as the result of concrete discussion of concrete cases.
Usually, if not invariably, abuses have been thought to exist,
which the State has been called upon to remedy : the great
landowners have stood in the way of closer settlement : wages
have been low and conditions of labour bad : rates of interest,
insurance premiums, prices of coal, and rents of dwellings have
been thought to be high : the oyster beds have been depleted
by private exploitation : taxation has fallen too heavily upon the
poor : for one cause or another there has been complaint,
complaint has grown into agitation, and agitation into legislation."
54 THE PAN-ANGLES
now numbering forty-eight, in security and pro-
sperity, while retaining to each individual locality
and to each citizen a fair share of the liberties for
which the race has long been striving.
While these political combinations are guarding
our individualism they are at the same time depen-
dent upon it. " England expects her navy will
do its duty," was not the signal Nelson hoisted
on the Victory. His appeal was to " every man."
" Keep cool and obey orders," admonished Dewey
at Manila, recognizing that in the intelligent self-
subordination of each member of each crew lay
the strength of his fleet.
The individualism of the Pan-Angle forms the
keynote of all his theories and practices as to
government. He wants to attend to his own
affairs. He prefers to give personal attention to
the making and administering of laws. In so far
as it seems impossible or impracticable to do this,
he has recourse to the best alternative, and wishes
someone representing him to attend in his stead
to those matters. This representative is often
limited in power by written instructions from his
principal, and provision is made in some cases for
the revision of the agent's acts by the same ulti-
mate power. And to whatever extent changing
circumstances make again feasible the personal
participation of the individual, to that extent he
dispenses with the services of his deputy. Here
is the whole story of government among the Pan-
Early accounts of the Germanic tribes tell us
that the freemen assembled to determine matters
of public concern, and there each in person gave
his opinion and assented or dissented to the opinions
of others. This was a simple presentative govern-
ment : each man presenting himself at the meeting
or moot, and speaking in his own interests. Laws
were made, and leaders or kings chosen and deposed.
Only lesser questions were for the chiefs, the
important questions were for the community. 1
As the areas having common interests widened,
not all the men who had the right found it con-
venient to attend the assembly. They might still
present themselves at some local gathering, a town
meeting, or a burgh meeting, within range of their
travelling powers, but to the more general assembly
only the great and strong were able to go. There
grew up the practice, too, that summons should be
sent out, inviting to the assembly. This worked
to discourage the full attendance of all who
formerly had the right to come. The Witen-
agamot or Witan, gathering of wise men, is the
name by which this early legislative body was
In 1068 all the landowners of England repaired
to a great assembly at Salisbury to swear fealty to
William the Conqueror. Part of them were sum-
moned personally, and in time came to claim a right
to a summons to succeeding assemblies. In these
they were more or less powerful according to the
nature of the king, and more than once extorted
from him charters of rights, re-establishing or en-
larging their ancient privileges. For two centuries
1 Arthur Murphy, The Works of Cornelius Tacitus, London,
1793, vol. iv. p. 16.
56 THE PAN-ANGLES
they participated in the form of electing kings.
The vast multitude, however, the "land-sitting
men," were summoned to Salisbury in a body, and
for that occasion only, and gradually lost all right
of personal attendance at later assemblies. 1
Meanwhile the Angles and Saxons and their
Teutonic kindred had long — even before leaving
the continent — been familiar with the idea of
representation. 2 Free men might be appointed
or selected, not necessarily by vote, to attend a
moot, including several towns or burghs, with
authority to act there in the name of their fellows.
And when, after the Norman Conquest, the people
had sufficiently recovered themselves to be able to
refuse taxes levied without their consent, the
natural method of giving or withholding that
consent was through representatives.
If the king wanted money, he might ask the
lords and bishops who were present and could
speak for themselves in his councils, but he must
ask also the people who, unable to present them-
selves in a vast body, were represented by some
one who spoke for them.
King John in 1213 bids "discreet men" from
each shire come to Oxford, 3 and his son Henry III.
in 1254 issues a writ requiring "to cause to come
before the King's Council two good and discreet
Knights of the Shire, whom the men of the county
1 Ency. Brit., vol. xxiii. p. 110.
2 Ibid., vol. xx. p. 837 : " The Angles, Saxons and other
Teutonic races who conquered Britain brought to their new
homes their own laws and customs, . . . and a certain rude
representation in local affairs." Cf. also Woodrow Wilson,
The State, 1898, Boston, rev. ed., 1911, pp. 560, 56l.
3 Ency. Brit., vol. ix. p. 491-
shall have chosen for this purpose in the stead of
all and of each of them, to consider along with the
knights of other shires what aid they will grant
the king." 1 In a similar writ of 1295 the term
"to be elected" is first used instead of the less
specific instruction "chosen." 2 The word repre-
sentative, to describe such a person "chosen" or
"elected" "with full and sufficient power for
themselves and for the community " 3 was not yet
in use. It appears in print in Cromwell's time, 4 and
was then possibly new political jargon.
The council so composed developed into the
British Parliament, that name coming into use for
it in 1275. 5 With the king it was for years the
law-making power of the British Isles. The peers
held their seats in the House of Lords by personal
right, as did the wise men of the Witenagamot. 6
They acted on their own account, and were respon-
sible to no one. The members of the House of
Commons held their seats by no personal right,
but as representatives of a large body of commoners
1 Ency. Brit., vol. xxiii. p. 109.
2 Ibid., vol. xxiii. pp. 109-110.
3 Ibid., vol. xxiii. p. 110.
4 Ibid., vol. xxiii. p. 109: "In 1651 Isaac Penington the
younger published a pamphlet entitled ' The fundamental right,
safety and liberty of the People ; which is radically in them-
selves, derivatively in the Parliament, their substitutes or repre-
sentatives.'" Cf. New English Dictionary, Oxford, 1891,
" Representative," where 1658 is mentioned as its first use.
5 Ency. Brit., vol. xx. p. 835, and vol. ix. p. 491.
6 The House of Lords contains a certain representative
element in the Irish and Scottish members. These are some
only of the peers of their respective countries, and are elected
by their fellow peers to seats in the House of Lords — those from
Ireland for life, and from Scotland for a session.
58 THE PAN-ANGLES
who could not all attend. They were chosen for
this purpose, and derived authority from the people
who employed them. The king in his own right
gave or withheld his sanction to the measures
agreed upon by the two houses. It followed that
the king and peers had no vote for representatives
in Parliament, as, being present to act for them-
selves, they needed none.
The character of the law-making power has
gradually altered. Since the days of Queen Anne
no sovereign has attempted to veto a bill passed
by Parliament. 1 Since 1834 no sovereign has dis-
missed a ministry, 2 nor has he formed one, 3 and
the ministry has come to be responsible to the
representative branch of Parliament alone. From
1835 to 1911 the presentative branch was purely
a revising chamber. 4 Since 1911 it has been
permitted to delay only, but not to prevent, the
passing of a law desired by the representative
branch, Parliament becoming thus in essence uni-
cameral. The king and the lords hold positions
of great historical and sentimental value; their
personal influence may be as great as they can
make it. The House of Commons, however, is
now the sole power of legislation in the British
Isles. It is hence fair to say that the presentative
element is negligible in the national government
of the British Isles.
Across the Atlantic went the developing
political structures of the Pan -Angles. The
colonists, in the simplicity of their social organiza-
tion, approached early Teuton conditions. They
1 Ency. Brit., vol. xii. p. 295. 2 Ibid., p. 295.
3 Ibid., vol xxiii. p. 112. 4 Ibid., vol. xxiii. p. 112.
had the benefit, however, of all the experience the
race had accumulated since that time. In New
England from the earliest settlement till to-day
the town meeting has been at the basis of govern-
ment. It is the folk moot flourishing in new soil,
and with the House of Lords (as it existed till
1911) could claim descent from the presentative
government of our political forbears in the German
forests. Of Virginia it is written that in " 1619 a
House of Assembly * broke out ' in the colony . . .
then just twelve years old. In that Assembly we
see the first-born child of the British Parliament,
the eldest brother, so to speak, of the legislatures
of the United States and of the English colonies
of to-day. This Assembly was composed of a
council and a body of twenty-two representatives
from the eleven plantations, elected by the free-
holders, imposing taxes and passing laws, meeting
either annually or at frequent intervals." 1 In this
manner were our notions of representative govern-
A representative is not necessarily chosen by
the people he represents. 2 In the early parlia-
mentary days he often was not, but was arbitrarily
appointed by the king. Since then the people
have taken upon themselves the right of designat-
ing who is to represent them, and an increasingly
large number of any given community has gained
participation in that right. In some cases the
people have arranged to make their choice in-
directly. An example is the election prior to 1913
of United States senators by the people of the
1 Alfred Caldecott, English Colonization and Empire, London,
1891, p. 129. 2 Cf. ante, p. 56.
60 THE PAN-ANGLES
state, but through the state legislature ; another,
is the appointment of the upper house, as in
New Zealand, by the elected members of the
lower house. But as evidence of the people's wish
to keep control over their representatives, one may-
note the agitation for direct election in both these
cases, and the virtual direct election of senators in
some states of the United States, even before the
Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution of
the United States came into force in 1913. 1
There are certain difficulties attendant upon
representation. The agent may fail truly to
represent, and the Pan- Angle people are constantly
seeking to devise and perfect methods of minimiz-
ing this difficulty. One means toward that end
has been sets of written instructions called con-
stitutions, 2 adopted by the people and set over
their representatives. The written Constitution of
the United States and those of its original thirteen
states were early edicts of the people restricting
the power of the people's representatives. In the
political talk of our times we find persistently re-
curring the words initiative, referendum, and recall. 3
What success will attend the movements for which
they stand, movements which merely extend or
return to ancient practices, it is too early to say.
But the thing that is plain is that these are all
efforts of the people to exercise their right to
govern themselves presentatively, because they
1 CI post, p. 109, note 1.
2 The variety of uses of the word " constitution " is referred to,
post, pp. 95-108.
3 Cf. W. H. Taft, Popular Government, New Haven, Connec-
ticut, 1913, pp. 42-95, for a discussion of these three terms.
think representation in present practice not entirely
Once presentative government over even a
comparatively small area was impracticable because
of the time necessary to cover distances. Now the
results of an election involving millions of voters
and extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific can
be known a few hours after the closing of the polls.
Burke thought the two months' sailing between
Great Britain and America an insuperable obstacle
to joint representation, although Franklin and
Pownall disagreed with him. 1 Such is our speed
of travel to-day that representatives from every
Pan- Angle nation could reach North America in
less than a month. Not only that, but thanks to
electricity, a referendum could be held all over the
Pan- Angle countries to-day as successfully as the
town meeting was held a hundred years ago. And
the decisions it reached would be known through-
out the world in a fraction of the time that was
needed for the deliberations of the Witan to reach
the outskirts of the kingdom.
In what proportion the governments of the
seven nations are presentative and in what propor-
tion representative, it would be difficult to tell.
Easy it is, however, to recognize these forms every-
where. Whether it is the adult population of
New Zealand balloting on national prohibition ;
the men of a New England town meeting voting
its school appropriation ; or the members of the
House of Lords discussing federation within the
British Isles — we have a purely presentative bit of
1 C. A. W. Pownall, Thomas Pownall, London, 1908, pp.
62 THE PAN-ANGLES
governing. If it is the representatives of an
Australian state voting on a minimum wage bill ;
the members of the British House of Commons
passing a compulsory insurance act ; or those of
a Canadian provincial legislative assembly voting
to exclude Asiatics, the principle is identical.
Government in these cases is representative.
The tendency is towards an increase in the
presentative element, as is evidenced by growing
popular control. Not only our laws but our
forms of government show this. The Pan- Angle
notion of an executive at the time the first colonies
were forming was drawn from a kingship which
then meant a permanent tenure of office. The
president of the United States who holds office
for a fixed length of time was created after that
model. He represents, but once elected cannot be
recalled. 1 In the British Isles changes have come
about, and the prime minister who now wields exe-
cutive power can be recalled any day by the people
speaking indirectly through their representatives,
popular opinion swaying his party adherents to re-
linquish their efforts in his support. 1 In this respect
the British Isles organization has proved more sensi-
tive than the American to the spirit of the times. 2
In our governments various individuals and
classes, or what would in modern days be called
"interests," struggle for supremacy. When a
minority is successful we dub it aristocracy or
privilege. At one time the king was the privileged
minority. In 1215 the barons attacked the
1 Recourse to the grave process of impeachment lies outside
normal procedure and is here disregarded.
2 Cf. post, p. 113 et seq.
privilege of this minority ; the king asked to have
the matter arbitrated by a third party. The
barons, who apparently understood something
about arbitration, refused. They also refused to
give any assurance of their own good behaviour ;
Magna Carta was a check on the king only.
Moreover " Magna Carta can hardly be said to
have introduced any new ideas. As Pollock and
Maitland (History of English Law) say ' on the
whole the charter contains little that is absolutely
new. It is restorative.' " * Since then many
aristocrats have enjoyed special privileges : certain
churches, certain forms of industry, holders of
certain kinds of property. Against all these in
turn the levelling force of democracy has been
hurled. It can be said in general that we are
travelling, though with a wise conservatism, away
from the aristocratic to the democratic, by which
is meant that privileges are becoming more seldom
to the few and power more usual to the many.
Democracy, it seems likely, is to be our common
future. But, in the meanwhile, the present stage
of all our governments may truly be said to be
representative action with presentative sanction.
Allied to the question of government is that of
suffrage. While all are subject to the government
1 Ency. Brit., vol. xvii. pp. 315, 317; but also cf. ibid., vol. ix.
p. 488 : " It was the first of the many occasions in English history
when the demand for reform took the shape of a reference back
to old precedents, and now (as on all subsequent occasions) the
party which opposed the crown read back into the ancient
grants which they quoted a good deal more than had been
actually conceded in them."
64 THE PAN-ANGLES
of the land, only some take active part in determin-
ing what it shall be. And here, again, the indivi-
dualism of the Pan- Angles is an insistent factor.
Voters, whether sopresentatively or representatively,
have been in our past one of the privileged minori-
ties — all individuals reckoned. They are so still.
But by constantly receiving into their ranks bodies
of newly enfranchised persons, they bid fair to
become the majority. Social, religious, property,
and educational disqualifications long kept many
men from the suffrage. Many of these disabilities
have been abandoned, some in all places, others in
some places only. Sex alone has kept many from
voting. This disqualification has been in places
and in some respects removed. Whatever one
may believe as to the wisdom of entrusting the
ballot to the few or to the many, it has long
seemed evident that the race was advancing to-
ward universal adult male suffrage. Now many
would say instead that the goal is universal adult
On our respective paths toward this goal our
various electoral units mark various stages of
progress. Identical voting qualifications may be
found half a world apart, while neighbouring
groups differ. No two probably agree in every
slight detail, though the range of dissimilarity
is narrow. Certain property and educational tests
are not infrequent, especially in the older Pan-
Angle organizations. The newer ones, as a rule,
are the more democratic. Women hold suffrage
privileges in at least some respects very extensively,
the newer communities again being more liberal
in this. Plural voting obtains in the British Isles.
These local differences produce no confusion, but
keep our progress orderly.
Of the United States it has been said, " There
is a great advantage in having different State
governments try different experiments in the en-
actment of laws and in governmental policies, so
that a State less prone to accept novel and untried
remedies may await their development by States
more enterprising and more courageous. The end
is that the diversity of opinion in State governments
enforces a wise deliberation and creates a locus
poenitentioe which may constitute the salvation of
the Republic." 1 Equally might this have been
stated of the effect of the diversity of opinion in
the Pan- Angle units on the progress of the whole
In no regard more than in the question of
suffrage, is seen the value and need of local option.
It permits progress in whatever respect progress
is possible, and prevents the misfortunes that
accompany attempts to force progress where the
time and conditions are not ripe for it. Through
the exercise of local option the suffrage has been
constantly extended, a bit here and a bit there,
throughout Pan- Angle countries without seriously
affecting our political stability. Any attendant
shock is confined within narrow boundaries. 2 If
Texas and Vermont, Tasmania and South Australia,
Transvaal and Cape Province have different suffrage
1 W. H. Taft, Popular Government, New Haven, Connecticut,
1913, p. 155.
2 The exception to this statement is apparent in the British
Isles, where suffrage is a national affair, and no federal frame-
work affords a basis for local option on this privilege.
66 THE PAN-ANGLES
requirements, it is because they differ in history
and composition and hence in needs. The desires
of their inhabitants could not be satisfied by a
single law. To seek to establish one would be
to estrange all and satisfy none.
The question of negro suffrage is in point. The
northern states of America, where the negroes
were comparatively few and were to some degree
at least educated, felt favourably toward negro
suffrage. After the Civil War the northern voters,
acting through the central government, were able
to give the vote to the negro, not only within their
own borders but throughout the country. The
results were most unfortunate. The Pan- Angle
population of the southern states thereby lost their
local autonomy. The men most fit to govern in
these states were forced in self-defence to become
law-breakers. It took many years to undo the
mistake and re-establish there the will of the Pan-
Angle community. Through the intelligence of
the South in framing legislation, and the forbear-
ance of the North in not overriding this legislation,
it is now adequately accomplished. " Hitherto, no
amount of legal ingenuity has sufficed to extract
from the United States supreme court a direct,
straightforward decision on the constitutionality of
the 'grandfather' clauses in the election laws of
many states, whereby the Negro voters have been
disfranchised. The court has invariably disposed
of cases designed to test the constitutionality of
such laws on technical grounds." 1 South Africa,
when the subject arose in Constitutional Conven-
1 Spring Ji eld (Massachusetts) Weekly Republican, November 20,
tion, was wiser. No part overruled another part.
" In respect of the admission of natives to the
parliamentary franchise the practice of the Cape
Colony was in direct conflict with that of the
remaining colonies. As no agreement on the
question of the admission or non-admission of
natives to the Union franchise could be reached,
the Convention decided that the franchise qualifi-
cations existing in the several colonies should stand
as the franchise qualifications for the Union Parlia-
ment in the respective provinces of the Union. As
the result of this compromise, while the native
voters in the Cape Province obtained the Union
franchise, practically no natives were admitted to
this privilege in the remaining three provinces." 1
With certain temporary limitations, provision is
made for the elimination of the vote of the coloured
inhabitants of Cape Province. 2 It is now generally
acknowledged that no community of Pan- Angles
is to be forced to accept as voters those whom it
Our law, like our language, has flowed from
many sources and has been subjected to foreign
influence. The colonists carried out with them
the English common law, the sources of which
" have been stated to be ' as undiscoverable as those
of the Nile.' " 3 Quite different from this is the
common law of Scotland, " based on the principles
1 W. B. Worsfold, The Union of South Africa, London, 1912,
p. 126. 2 Ibid., pp. 139-140.
3 An Analysis of the System of Government throughout the British
Empire, London, 1912, p. 44.
68 THE PAN-ANGLES
of the Roman Civil and Canon law as applied and
modified by a long series of statutes of the Scots
Parliament and decisions of the Scottish courts. . . .
A detailed comparison of the differences between
the private law of England and Scotland would in-
volve a survey of the whole domain of jurisprudence
and would be the work of a lifetime." * From 1642
to 1652 occurred the English Civil War, followed
by the Commonwealth. In those stormy years
which seem, as writes an Australian jurist, "to
have anticipated almost every effort of modern
political thought, scarcely any cry was more per-
sistently raised by the reform party than the cry
for reform of the law. It was the first great period
of conscious law reform." 2 All the Pan- Angle
nations, save only the British Isles and Newfound-
land, had the stress of that period reflected in the
history of their settlements, or were founded after
the results of that war had been produced.
In the new countries the legal influence was
predominantly British, but in some parts the colon-
ists encountered communities of Europeans of
other civilizations and of other legal theories. In
Quebec and Louisiana they met French law; in
western United States, Spanish ; and in South
Africa, a form of Roman-Dutch. Being elements
in civilizations which only gradually have blended
into that of the Pan-Angles, these laws have in
greater or less measure survived. But in such
1 An Analysis of the System of Government throughout the British
Empire , London, 1912, pp. 44-45.
2 Edward Jenks, The Future of British Law : An Inaugural
Lecture delivered before the University of Melbourne, Melbourne,
1889, pp. 6-7.
localities slowly the foreign law merges into that of
the local Pan- Angles. As an example we have
South Africa : " The local Dutch statute law was
abandoned perforce as obsolescent, and replaced
almost entirely by local enactments based upon
the existing circumstances of the colony or founded
upon English statutes, and the Roman-Dutch
common law, broadly speaking, came to be ad-
ministered concurrently with English common law.
Nor was it surprising that, with judges and ad-
vocates alike versed in the decisions and practice
of the English Courts, English principles were
more and more closely woven into the fabric of the
Colonial law. And apart from the influence of the
' case-law,' thus built up through the Colonial
Reports, circumstances — or rather its greater
capacity to satisfy the conditions of modern life —
gave the regulation of the field of commercial inter-
course almost exclusively to English law." 1 A
like story might be told of French law in Louisiana.
In other instances, where perhaps it receives no
official recognition, non-English law has doubtless
had its effect on what may be loosely called Pan-
Angle law. As long as it suits the people and
their needs better, so long a law exists regardless
of its origin. But experience shows that the law
of any Pan- Angle nation tends to conform to the
practices of our whole civilization.
Because the English common law forms so large
an element, and because it has among us been
modified only by English-speaking people, the
Pan- Angle law, though drawn from many sources,
1 W. B. Worsfold, The Union of South Africa, London, lpl2,
70 THE PAN-ANGLES
still presents a certain homogeneity. " An English
barrister . . . when once he enters an American
court, or begins debating legal questions with
American lawyers, . . . knows that he is not
abroad, but at home ; he breathes again the legal
atmosphere to which he is accustomed. The law
of America, he finds, is the law of England carried
across the Atlantic, and little changed even in form.
In all legal matters it is the conservatism, not the
changeableness, of Americans which astonishes an
English observer. Old names and old formulas
meet us in every law court. Some twenty-six
years ago there were to be found in Chicago in
daily use forms of pleading which had long become
obsolete in England." 1
It is in our common tendencies, however, that
the legal attitudes of the seven nations show most
striking accord. Jenks, quoted earlier, concludes
that we are in favour of uniformity, simplicity,
greater freedom of the individual, and more fluidity
of capital and labour, so much so, that " The courts
will not even enforce effectively a contract of service.
To do that, it is said, would be to legalize slavery,
and the fact that the slave has become such by his
own act makes no difference. It is considered that
the perfect spontaneity of labour is of more value
than the sacredness of contract." 2 Further than
this, actual legislation repeats itself in the many
Pan- Angle law-making bodies. The British Isles,
1 A. V. Dicey, a A Common Citizenship for the English Race,"
in Contemporary Review, vol. lxxi., April 1897, p. 469.
2 Edward Jenks, The Future of British Law : An Inaugural
Lecture delivered before the University of Melbourne, Melbourne,
1889, p. 11.
Massachusetts, New Zealand, and Australia test
the merits or demerits of a minimum wage law.
Compulsory insurance, old age pensions, maternity
benefits, and arbitration statutes spring up every-
where. In efforts to solve some problems one part
of the Pan- Angles leads ; in others another part.
Whether this is regarded as reform or experimenta-
tion is not under present discussion. The whole
Pan-Angle civilization appears headed towards what
is called by some social amelioration and by others
paternalism. Whatever its true name, this race
progress starts from a greater recognition of the indi-
vidual and hopes for his greater comfort and welfare.
Of law among the Pan- Angles it may be said
that it shows plainly its relation to English common
law ; that it is affected by local conditions resulting
from historical causes ; that it exhibits certain
common tendencies, and among those is a regard
for the individual and a passing from the viewpoint
of status to that of contract.
All this can be seen in the laws regarding marriage
and divorce. These, as well as our prejudices in
such matters, are still largely determined by the
dead hand of the Middle Ages. But the Teutonic
ideal of the equality of the marriage partnership
has survived the accumulation of dogma. Our
release from its grip has not depended on the
divorce of an English king, nor the accompanying
religious schism. There is in us that which was
destined to carry us up through the pains of chang-
ing social conditions to more satisfactory relations
between the husband and the wife and society.
72 THE PAN-ANGLES
In our efforts to attain our ideals we are using
many local laws. The British Isles have three:
English, Scottish, and Irish. If the Channel
Islands and the Isle of Man were considered, there
would be six. Besides this, members of the royal
family are subject to special restrictions. New-
foundland and New Zealand have marriage laws of
their own. Canada has eleven, the Union of South
Africa has four, and Australia six. 1 In the United
States there are forty-eight. This makes a total
of seventy -four sets of laws in the seven self-
governing nations regarding who may marry and
divorce and how.
These seventy-four different sets are not, how-
ever, strange and dissimilar. As in the case of
suffrage, each one has many points identical with
many others, and the range of variation is small.
All are monogamous ; all allow freedom of choice
to the marrying parties ; all hold marriage and
divorce to be civil matters, and consider ministers
and priests of religious denominations as civil
officials for the legalizing of marriages. All prohibit
marriage within certain degrees of relationship, the
tendency being not to include among them the
relationship -by -marriage impediments surviving
from mediaeval practice, such as the various deceased
spouse's brother or sister laws. The majority allow
divorce, although in some, like Newfoundland and
South Carolina, marriage is by law indissoluble.
The trend at present seems to be towards safe-
guarding marriage, but to make easier the means
of divorce. Men and women are coming more
1 Eversley and Craies, Marriage Laws of the British Empire,
London, 1910, pp. 6l, 173, 192, 70, 239-392.
nearly to an equality before the law. Such enact-
ments as that of New South Wales permitting a
husband and wife to contract financially with each
other shows the trend of our beliefs in the rights
of any individual to be a distinct personality.
The sacred beauty of the marriage tie no people
hold higher than do the Pan- Angles. With them
it is not a status imposed from without, but the
voluntary union of two individuals. John Stuart
Mill voiced an aspiration of the entire Pan-Angle
civilization when he wrote : " What marriage
may be in the case of two persons of cultivated
faculties, identical in opinions and purposes,
between whom there exists that best kind of
equality, similarity of powers and capacities with
reciprocal superiority in them — so that each can
enjoy the luxury of looking up to the other, and
can have alternately the pleasure of leading and
of being led in the path of development — I will
not attempt to describe. To those who can
conceive it, there is no need ; to those who cannot,
it would appear the dream of an enthusiast. But
I maintain, with the profoundest conviction, that
this, and this only, is the ideal of marriage ; . . ." *
In no sphere is the individualism of the Pan-
Angle more rampant than in matters of religion.
Liberty of conscience to him is as necessary as
liberty of body, and he has struggled to obtain
it with the same persistency.
Once the status of nationality carried with it
1 John Stuart Mill, The Subjection of Women, London, 1906,
74 THE PAN-ANGLES
automatic inclusion in the national church. A
diversity of faiths in one nation was unthinkable.
Any who refused to conform, in semblance at
least, were considered by the group as outsiders
and enemies, to be harried and pillaged, perhaps
slaughtered. Later, though leave to live was
granted to those of minority creeds, they were
debarred from the exercise of certain civil privileges.
In the British Isles, not until 1858 were Jews
able to take oaths as members of the Houses
of Parliament. Still later, though all might
share equally in the duties and rights of citizenship,
all -were compelled to contribute directly or
indirectly to the support of the state church,
and, unless openly avowing otherwise, were pre-
sumed to belong to it. Some Pan- Angles still
linger in this stage — those, for example, who
reside in Quebec or England. This is the
significance of the state church to-day.
To the majority of the Pan- Angles, however,
religion is a private matter — not a public matter.
In short, it is a concern in which the majority are
not to interfere with the minority and in which
the minority are not asked to acquiesce in the
feelings of the majority. This is a condition not
easily achieved. Migration from the British Isles
by no means ended all contention. " Everywhere,
indeed, that British settlers went this strife of
sects went with them." 1 Six out of the seven
nations were founded after our British predecessors
had begun the battle for religious freedom. All
six have known state churches in one form or
1 United Empire, London, January 1914, A. W. Tilby,
(t Christianity and the Empire," p. 57.
another, sometimes with attendant persecutions.
To-day five thrive without state churches. Even
in Quebec and England taxation for the benefit
of one's neighbour's church is the only penalty
against free worshipping. Elsewhere, throughout
the Pan-Angle world, one may hold any creed
he will, and the state does not ask him to
contribute to any church, nor does the state assist
or recognize one creed above another.
In certain places, notably portions of the United
States, individualism in religion goes to extremes.
In 1906 there were estimated to be in that country
one hundred and eighty-six different kinds of
Protestant churches, 1 some of them approaching
the bizarre in character, others so like one another
that the differences which divided them were
scarcely discernible. Certain denominations were
known only in very circumscribed areas. 2 There
may be a certain extravagance in maintaining the
large amount of equipment necessary for so many
establishments. Apart from that, however, there
seems to be no objection to the multitudinousness
of American faiths that is not more than balanced
by the benefits to the individual from free
" After God had carried us safe to New England,
and wee had builded our houses, provided necessaries
for our livelihood, rear'd convenient places for
1 Ency. Brit., vol. xxvii. p. 638.
2 U. S. Bureau of the Census, Special Reports of the Census :
Religious Bodies : 1906, Washington, D.C., 1910, pt. ii., pp. 225,
508, 626, 635, 659.
76 THE PAN-ANGLES
Gods worship, and setled the Civill Government :
One of the next things we longed for, and looked
after was to advance Learning and perpetuate it
to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate
Ministery to the Churches, when our present
Ministers shall lie in the Dust." 1 So runs an
account of the founding of one of the Pan- Angle
universities as it was written in 1643. In a
near-by city a public library was later established.
On the building that shelters it to-day are inscribed
these sentences: "The Commonwealth requires
the education of the people as the safeguard of
order and liberty," and " Built by the people and
dedicated to the advancement of learning." Over
the door are the words : " Free to all."
Here is evidenced the attitude of one early
colony toward education, and it is typical of all.
Education, education free to all, education com-
pulsory on all, is the ideal in each of the six new
nations. Free instruction is in some places offered
to a child from the age of three, when he enters
kindergarten, to any age at which he wishes to
attend the university. For certain years, very
generally six to fourteen, attendance at school is
compulsory. There is no discrimination in regard
to sex, and the classes are frequently co-educational.
Parents are in the main allowed to send children
to private and church schools when these are of
satisfactory excellence ; though in many places no
such exist, and no stigma is in any way attached
to the acceptance of free education. In many
places no other sort has ever been dreamed of.
The British Isles meanwhile have not been
1 New Englands First Fruits, London, 1 643, p. 1 2.
insensible to the same impulses. If popular educa-
tion there has seemed to lag behind that of the
younger nations, it is because the British Isles had
not so free a field for change. There, a more
complex social structure, and a tradition that
envelops every department of life, interfere with
the movement that would cast aside the old and
adopt the new. Reforms must go slowly under
such conditions, but the opportunity for education
for all is there now an accomplished fact. In 1832
began the history of state education in the British
Isles. 1 To-day elementary education is compulsory
between the ages of five and fourteen, 2 and free, if
one desires to take it so. Since 1902 public grants
to secondary schools have opened their doors to
certain numbers of non-paying pupils. The differ-
ences between the educational systems of the
British Isles and those of the other English-speaking
nations can now be said to be differences of method
or degree only, but not of spirit.
Throughout our civilization, education opens the
way to achievement, "the only real patent of
nobility in the modern world." 3 The success or
failure of the group is known to depend on the
individual. He holds the ballot, makes the laws,
enforces them; his religion is part of the faith
of the land and determines the character of its
composite ; his ideals of marriage are expressed
in the practice of the race. Organization and a
few picked men do not control our destinies. To
1 Ency. Brit., vol. viii. p. 971.
2 Whitakers Almanack, London, 1913, p. 489-
3 Woodrow Wilson, The State, 1898, Boston, rev. ed., 1911,
78 THE PAN-ANGLES
ensure the future of the group we educate our
citizens. We " advance Learning and perpetuate
it to Posterity " so that wisdom may be heard in
our councils, and that ballots may register con-
As individualists the Pan- Angles have come to
their present state. As individualists they must
continue to work out their destiny. The right
they prize most is the right to develop further in
individualism. That right will be secured to Pan-
Angles only when they have cause to fear no
THE SEVEN NATIONS
"The representatives of the great nations across
A British Colonial Secretary used these
words 1 in a speech welcoming to the Imperial
Conference of 1902 the Prime Ministers of the
other Britannic governments. This should be
enough to permit the terminology to any Pan-
Angle, when he refers to New Zealand, Australia,
South Africa, Newfoundland or Canada, and the
men who govern them. These "great nations
across the seas " are themselves conscious of nation-
hood on a parity with that of the British Isles.
A representative of one of them in the same
year thus spoke of his country and its fellow
nations : " The British Empire ... a galaxy of
independent nations . . . There is not in Canada
at the present moment a single British soldier
to maintain British supremacy — moreover it is
Canadian soldiers who are today garrisoning
Halifax . . . The whole Australian continent
1 Richard Jebb, Studies in Colonial Nationalism, London, 1905,
80 THE PAN-ANGLES
has now been moulded into another nation under
the flag . . . and I can see dawning in South
Africa the day when there will be another Con-
federation . . , wl Eleven years later in that
South Africa another national Prime Minister
spoke of his country and his countrymen. " Their
country was part of the British Empire. They
could not get away from it ; it was their Con-
stitution ; and yet they were as free as if they
were their own State, and they took up the posi-
tion — he had said so in England — that they were
not a subject State, but part of the British
Empire, and were on an equality. They were a
sister State of England." 2
When throughout these lands writers similarly
use the word " nation," the student of Pan- Angle
affairs need proceed to no further investigation,
though he may be unable to justify the word by
current dictionary definition. Enough if he notes
its political significance. In the same class are
such words as "independent," "self-governing,"
and "autonomous": subject to the same theo-
retical queries but established by the same prac-
tical usage. Anyone who would question such
usage is silenced by the recognition that it only
conforms to facts. On such facts is based the
thesis of these pages.
The seven units of the Pan-Angle world differ
1 Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the Dominion Day Banquet, 1902 ;
quoted Richard J ebb, Studies in Colonial Nationalism, London,
1905, p. 1.
2 General Botha at South African Nationalist Congress,
November 24, 1913; quoted in The Times Weekly Edition,
London, November 28, 1913.
THE SEVEN NATIONS
both in size and density of population. 1 Hence it
might be objected that to classify according to
these divisions is to neglect the relative strength
and importance of the various political groups.
Newfoundland is not as important in population or
wealth as the British Isles ; while near Canada,
it cannot be considered a part of Canada. New
Zealand is two-thirds as far from Australia as
Newfoundland is from Scotland, and emphatically
is no part of its huge neighbour. 2 One of its
citizens writes : " Although one thousand miles
distant from Australia at the nearest point,
although situated in a different climate and in-
evitably destined to display a different national tem-
perament, although already possessed of a national
In comparison with the above figures, England contains 50,890
square miles and 34,045,2.90 population. United States and
South Africa contain 9,828,294 and 4,697,152 respectively of
negroes, which together with other non- whites are excluded
from the figures in the above table. These figures are based on
Whitakers Almanack, London, 1913, pp. 584, 603, 660-667 ; and
Britannica Year Book, London, 1913, pp. 680, 682, 663, 678, 699,
703, 714, 557.
2 Auckland to Sydney, 1264; Wellington to Sydney, 1233;
Bluff to Hobart, 940 ; and St. John's to Glasgow, 1859 miles.
82 THE PAN-ANGLES
character, national aspirations and national pecu-
liarities, — although already served by Imperial
affiliation much better than it could be served by
any mere local federation, the Australian Prime
Minister has no deeper insight than to predict the
sinking of New Zealand into the status of a petty
and subordinate Australian State. . . . before New
Zealand denies its independence under the Empire,
and seeks shelter under the mantle of the [Austra-
lian] Federal Parliament, there will be a new poli-
tical heaven and a new political earth. At the
present time the proposal is simply absurd." 1
Some might prefer to treat the Pan- Angle world
as made up of two groups, those under the British
and American flags respectively. This, however,
fails to give the true character of the five younger
Britannic nations, and might suggest erroneously
that they bear a position to the British Parliament
similar to the position of the American states to
the Congress of the United States. Some American
may resent the implied insignificance of the forty-
eight states, some of which are larger in size or
population, or both, than certain of the Britannic
nations. Texas is over twice as large as either the
British Isles or New Zealand, and has a population
about four times that of New Zealand, or somewhat
less than that of Australia. Similarly, it may occur
to an Australian, or a Canadian, or a South African,
that the states of the first, or the provinces of the
two latter nations should receive more prominence.
Others again might consider that the yet undivided
areas of the British Isles, which may some time be
1 Round Table, London, September 1912, p. 753, quoting New
Zealand Herald. Auckland.
THE SEVEN NATIONS 83
organized under a federal system, or else the
ancient historical parts as they were before the
days of union, should be among the basic units of
To all these questionings the same answer
applies. It is not easy to generalize in a system
which, like ours, is the result of growth and adapta-
tion. There are many local peculiarities of govern-
ments and grades of autonomy which, significant
in themselves, are immaterial to the question of
Pan- Angle federation, and which for simplicity's
sake are here ignored. The classification here used
does not forbid others. Each reader may consider
these people according to any scheme of which he
approves. The seven nations here designated are
entities. Their pride of personality is in most
cases very great. This is reason enough, in spite
of huge discrepancies in size and population, for
utilizing a classification based on existing national
The British Isles 1 and the United States 2 are
1 The British Isles is here used in preference to United
Kingdom. None of the other Pan- Angle nations are "king-
doms " ; and the term is applicable only historically to that
democratic group of people of which England contains the
largest portion. For a modern Pan-Angle attitude, see W. H.
Moore, The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, 2nd ed.,
Melbourne, 1910, p. 66, where he says concerning the naming
of a nation: "'Kingdom of Australia' would be acceptable
2 Ency. Brit, vol. xxvii. p. 612 : "The United States, the
short title usually given to the great federal republic which had
its origin in the revolt of the British colonies in North America,
when, in the Declaration of Independence, they described
themselves as 'The Thirteen United States of America.'
Officially the name is ' The United States of America,' but ' The
84 THE PAN-ANGLES
entirely independent of each other and of all other
powers. Neither recognizes the right of anyone
to dictate to it in any matter, except by war or its
threat. The other five of the Pan- Angle nations
do not yet perhaps go so far.
In the past certainly the British government
legislated for them as it saw fit. The abolition of
slavery under the British flag early in the nine-
teenth century serves as an example. This outside
interference while humane was even then con-
In South Africa " what mainly angered the
Cape colonists was the inadequacy of the com-
pensation which was awarded in their case. The
value of the slaves on Dec. 1, 1834, when the
Emancipation Act came into effect, was estim-
ated by the commissioners specially appointed for
the purpose at three million sterling. The sum
allotted by the Imperial Government was no more
than one and a quarter million, payable, not in
South Africa, but in London, and with a deduction
of any expenses incurred in carrying out the work
of emancipation. The result was to impoverish
the former slave owners, and to awaken in them
a bitter feeling of resentment against the govern-
ment which had deprived them of their property,
and against the philanthropists by whom the policy
of emancipation had been inspired." 1 This step
had been taken without the consent of the governed,
United States ' (used as a singular and not as a plural) has
become accepted as the name of the country ; and pre-eminent
usage has now made its citizens ' Americans/ in distinction from
the other inhabitants of North and South America."
1 C. P. Lucas, Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
vol. iv., South Africa, Oxford, 1913, pt. i., pp. 146-147.
THE SEVEN NATIONS 85
the slave-holding communities having no represen-
tation in the Parliament that enacted the law.
Theoretically the same right exists to-day. 1
" In granting self-government to the British
Dominions Britain did not change her constitu-
tion. Conscious that the British Government
could not rule great communities in America,
Australasia, and Africa, . . . Britain has agreed
that they shall manage their own affairs. But
she has never undertaken, and could not under-
take, a clear division of functions, nor could she
in theory explicitly divest herself of final responsi-
bility in any sphere of government. The British
North America Act is a constitution by which the
relations of the Federal Government of Canada
with the Provincial Governments are fully regu-
lated and defined ; but it is not a constitution by
which the relations of that Federal Government
with the Imperial Government are fully regulated
or defined. . . . Any constitutional powers vested
in the English Government before the grant of
self-government to the Dominions are in theory
still vested in that Government today." 2
In practice this theoretical right has yielded to
the stronger claim of self-government. " My
vindication of the preference policy was given
not at Ottawa or on Canadian soil, but in the
heart of the Empire at London, at the Colonial
Conference, when 1 declared to the Empire that
1 An Analysis of the System of Government throughout the British
Empire, London, 1912, p. 58: "It should be remembered that
in theory there is nothing to prevent the Parliament of the
United Kingdom legislating for the internal affairs of a self-
governing colony or even imposing taxation on such a colony."
2 Round Table, London, September 1913, pp. 588-589.
86 THE PAN-ANGLES
I and my colleagues of the Government were
ready to make a trade treaty. We said, ' we are
ready to discuss with you articles on which we
can give you a preference, and articles on which
you can give us a preference. We are ready to
make with you a treaty of trade.' Mark those
words coming from a colony to the mother
country without offence being given or taken." 1
" What has never been questioned since the War
of Independence is that a democracy pretending
to a sovereignty over other democracies is either
a phantom or the most intolerable of all oppres-
sions." 2 "Nobody dreams in these days of the
British Parliament making laws for Canada or
Australia. Such an idea is alien to all thinking
In sum, the government of the British Isles no
longer dictates to the "great nations across the
seas." All that is now apparent of its former
right of interference consists of appeals from the
courts of these younger nations to the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council of the British
Isles, and the seldom used veto power of the
governors sent out from the British Isles to these
younger nations. The appeal power, though of
great theoretical importance, is of such limited
practical use that a British writer has overlooked
its existence in the following description : " The
1 Sir Wilfrid Laurier at Sorel, September 28, 1904, quoted
in Richard Jebb, Studies in Colonial Nationalism, London, 1905,
2 F. S. Oliver, Alexander Hamilton : An Essay on American
Union, London, 1906, p. 448.
3 Lord Milner, November 3, 1908, at Canadian Club, Montreal,
in Lord Milner, The Nation and the Empire, London, 1913, p. 362.
THE SEVEN NATIONS 87
Governor is the only link between the Home
Government and the Colonial, and in all of them
his powers are limited to the exercise of the veto.
Even this is circumscribed. It is tacitly under-
stood that the veto will be resorted to only when
the foreign relations of the empire are affected,
or when some Act is passed which the Secretary
of State decides to be incompatible with existent
Imperial legislation." 1
In place of the former parental-filial attitude
between the British Isles and the five younger
nations there is growing up a sympathetic and
sentimental friendship. The younger nations as
yet have no representatives chosen by their voters
to sit in a common legislature with Britishers, but
claim, nevertheless, to act with the British Isles as
equal partners in the Britannic world. This claim
is acknowledged by the British Isles government.
In the words of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain at Glas-
gow, October 6, 1903 : " And when I speak of our
colonies, it is an expression ; they are not ours —
they are not ours in a possessory sense. They are
sister States, able to treat with us from an equal
position, able to hold to us, willing to hold to us,
but also able to break with us." 2
In the light of the foregoing testimony, the
exact political status of New Zealand, Australia,
Newfoundland, Canada, and South Africa becomes
increasingly difficult to define. It seems, on the
whole, more nearly accurate to regard them as
1 Alfred Caldecott, English Colonization and Empire, London,
1891, p. 134.
2 Richard Jebb, Studies in Colonial Nationalism, London, 1905,
88 THE PAN-ANGLES
independent and autonomous with certain limita-
tions, than to consider them as dependent with
excessive liberties. Accordingly, each of the seven
Pan- Angle nations is here considered to be the
equal of each of the other six.
The collective Britannic nations have often been
styled Greater Britain, or the Britannic Empire.
The word empire, though constantly used for lack
of a better term, is a misnomer. As Seeley says :
" Greater Britain is not in the ordinary sense an
Empire at all." 1 Another authority says: "The
British Empire is not an Empire in the ordinary
meaning of the word. It is a system of govern-
ment." 2 "There is no Imperial Government." 3
Men speak of an Imperial Parliament, but in
reality no such thing exists. It is an ambitious
name applied sometimes to the Parliament of the
British Isles which has no members from the other
nations, and whose power to enforce its legislation
in the other Britannic nations is denied. " By a
fine tradition it has the full dignity of sovereignty ;
but in reality it is as impotent as the Continental
Congress, and only less ridiculous because it has
learned from experience the timid wisdom not to
court rebuffs. " 4
Downing Street is often referred to. Downing
Street is a term used to sum up the six administra-
tive departments of the British Isles government: the
Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the India Office,
1 J. R. Seeley, The Expansion oj England, London, 1883,
2 Round Table, London, May 1911, p. 232.
3 Ibid., February 1911, p. 1 67.
4 F. S. Oliver, Alexander Hamilton : An Essay on American Union,
London, 1906, p. 449.
THE SEVEN NATIONS 89
the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Board of
Trade. Of these the India Office does not enter into
the matters here discussed, and the Colonial Office
" in its present relations with the Dominions, . . .
is in reality little more than a clearing house of
information and correspondence." 1 The remaining
four, i.e. the Foreign Office, the Admiralty, the
War Office, and the Board of Trade have their
normal administrative functions in the government
of the British Isles. They are filled by the
ministry of the day, and hence are responsible to
the majority of the House of Commons and
ultimately to the British people. They are in no
way representative of, nor responsible to, the other
five self-governing nations. Through the theo-
retical veto of the governors sent out from the
British Isles, Downing Street is supposed to wield
its power and to prevent legislation in the five
younger nations that in matters touching foreign
affairs is contrary to the will of the British Parlia-
ment. As a matter of fact, this veto is rarely
exercised. Its exercise would be, " in plain words,
the tyranny of one Parliament over another — of
one democracy over another." 2 " The theory of
the British Constitution is, as it stands, clearly
intolerable except in disuse. The powers which
are imagined to exist in it would never stand the
strain of being put in force." 2 What does happen
when a veto appears called for by Britannic safety
is that the Parliament of the younger nation is
induced to reconsider matters in the light of what-
1 Round Table, London, September 1913, p. 590.
2 F. S. Oliver, Alexander\Hamilton : An Essay on American Union,
London, 1906, p. 449.
90 THE PAN-ANGLES
ever argument Downing Street has at hand.
Here, obviously, are not officials who as executives
and legislators are part of any common government.
They are part of only one government, viz. that of
the British Isles. Certain matters in government
must proceed from a single source. In the United
States the federal government, which represents
all the people and each state, has this in its charge
and has machinery by which to enforce its power.
Among the Britannic nations, the government of
one of them controls these matters with no other
machinery than persuasion to enforce its often
A member of the British Ministry of 1913 is
quoted as saying that "the only political organisa-
tions common to the whole Empire, ... are the
Crown, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,
and the Committee of Imperial Defence, but not one
of them has any executive or legislative power." 1
By " the Crown " is meant the power of Downing
Street just discussed. The Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council of the British Isles is the supreme
appellate court for courts under the British flag
outside the British Isles. A like function is per-
formed for British Isles courts by the House of
Lords. There is no single court of appeal for the
six Britannic nations. 2 Consequently, the Judicial
1 United Empire, London, January 1914, p. 1.
2 United Empire, London, October 1913, p. 767: "... there
is no ultimate court of appeal for the Empire as a whole. A
proposal to create one, by fusing the judicial functions of the
House of Lords, which hears United Kingdom appeals, and the
Privy Council, which hears appeals from oversea, has long been
favoured by Australian statesmen." Cf. The Times Weekly Edition,
London, August 22, 1913, "An Imperial Court of Appeals."
THE SEVEN NATIONS 91
Committee of the Privy Council can hardly be
called an institution common to all these nations,
even were its activity not so limited as to be
negligible. As to the Committee of Imperial
Defence, in it " the Dominion representatives are
guests and not constituents." 1
All this is to say that through certain makeshifts
and survivals, whose forms and functions are no-
where clearly defined, the governments of the six
Britannic nations come in occasional contact with
Such is the complexity of the English-speaking
world control, and such is its lack of uniformity of
classification and naming, that it is not safe to say
the five new nations and the British Isles and the
United States are the only English-speaking auto-
nomous groups. " The British Empire exhibits
forms and methods of Government in almost ex-
uberant variety." 2 For example, the Isle of Man
and the Channel Islands and such outposts of Pan-
Angle civilization as Pitcairn and Tristan da Cunha
might well be considered self-governing. These
areas are omitted from enumeration in this discus-
sion, not by reason of any lack of appreciation of
their worth, but because the inclusion of these many
assets and liabilities of the Pan- Angle concern
would unduly expand this discussion. These
groups have their respective positions with the
several Pan -Angle nations to which they are to a
greater or less degree connected. On the con-
tinued career of the seven Pan-Angle nations
1 United Empire, London, January 1914, p. 1.
2 Alfred Caldecott, English Colonization and Empire, London,
1891, p. 121.
92 THE PAN-ANGLES
depend the political existences of a multitude of
these smaller Pan- Angle localities.
Moreover, no direct discussion of the politics
of any of the many dependencies is here made.
Their needs are not for their own solving. Our
control we try to make materially beneficial to
their inhabitants by " giving them only what is
good for them, not always what they want." 1 Our
control of ourselves is based on the entirely oppo-
site theorem of taking what we want, not neces-
sarily what someone else thinks is good for us. In
short, we govern our dependencies in one way,
ourselves in quite another. The dependent coun-
tries which "belong to" the several nations may
present many problems to the Pan- Angles, but these
form no "part of" the Pan- Angle problem. This
is no place to question whether Seeley was justified
in his doubt as to the value of India to the British
Isles. 2 Enough here to acknowledge that our
present economic policy leads many of our seven
nations to believe that the holding of dependencies,
especially in the tropics, is of value. To enumerate
all these dependencies would be tedious and need-
less. It is only to distinguish the dependent from
the independent that space is here given to the
A united government over and between these
seven Pan-Angle nations would be unaffected by
the existence of these possessions. At the present
1 W. C. Forbes, lately Civil Governor of the Philippine Islands,
Address concerning the Philippines, before Boston City Club,
November 20, 1913, quoted in Boston City Club Bulletin, Boston,
January 1, 1914, p. 40.
2 J. R. Seeley, The Expansion of England, London, 1883,
THE SEVEN NATIONS 93
time New Zealand and Australia hold dependencies.
This in no way interferes with their being somehow,
as they believe, parts of a political entity with the
British Isles. Similarly, in case of the uniting of
the seven Pan- Angle nations, New Zealand and
Australia could each retain its dependencies, and
the United States could retain its dependencies,
without impairing the success of a Pan -Angle
government. The history of our civilization shows
that such a complicated procedure is the way of
natural growth among Pan -Angle peoples.
" Empire," from its long association with states
builded of conquered peoples, is no fit word to use
for a voluntary combination of Pan- Angles. Nor
would any form of government be acceptable that
blotted out the individuality that each of the seven
nations has established. They are members of a
great civilization, each to - day practically self-
supreme. Whatever arrangement they may choose
to enter upon to protect themselves and their
civilization, they will wish to continue always
The seven Pan- Angle nations are similar in their
forms of government. This similarity is often
obvious, but even where differences of procedure
seem to exist the foundations of government are
still the same.
In each of the nations the people rule. In each
they follow in governing three practices : ultimate
control on all questions is in the voters ; immediate
legislative control is in legislatures composed of
representatives who act on behalf of the voters,
and subject to restrictions, if any, by the voters
only ; and executive or administrative control is in
charge of elected persons. If " a country where a
large portion of the people has some considerable
share in the supreme power would be a constitu-
tional country," l then these seven nations are more
than constitutional countries, for in them the people
not only have " some considerable share," but are
the final judges on any matters which they desire
to adjudicate. As such these nations meet Burke's
definition of a free government : "If any man asks
me what a free government is, 1 answer, that, for
any practical purpose, it is what the people think
1 Ency. Brit., vol. vii. p. 15.
GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICES 95
so, — and that they, and not I, are the natural,
lawful, and competent judges of the matter.
Ultimate control in all these nations is secured
to the voters by elections and referenda. By these
two means the voters choose their representatives
and sometimes actively participate in legislation.
Often, too, they state the forms under which their
representatives shall work and limit the work they
shall be allowed to perform. In the British Isles
there is no formal limitation on the power of the
representatives elected to the House of Commons.
In the other six nations the elected representatives
are empowered to act only in certain fields. Their
power is conveyed to them through written instru-
ments or constitutions which are beyond their
control. All power in either case lies ultimately
in the voters, whether through the ballot and their
ability to defeat at the polls alone, or through this
plus a written constitution. Accordingly, as already
stated, all seven of our nations have constitutional
governments. Outside the British Isles they are,
in a sense, doubly constitutional, because not only is
this power of election in the voters, but the frame-
work, or written constitution, of each government
under which the representatives must act is likewise
in the control of the voters.
The word constitution 2 is variously used in Pan-
1 Quoted in Woodrow Wilson, Mere Literature, Boston, 1900,
2 Ency. Brit., vol. vii. p. 1 5 : " The ideas associated with consti-
tution and constitutionalism are thus, it will be seen, mainly of
modern and European origin. They are wholly inapplicable to
96 THE PAN-ANGLES
Angle parlance, and it may be well here to discuss
some of its meanings.
The Constitution of the British Isles consists
partly of laws, determining the form of government,
which have been passed at various times and are
still in force. To this extent it is written. The
bulk of the Constitution, however, lies in a mass
of tradition, and depends for its force upon the
respect in which Parliament holds that tradition.
For this reason the British Constitution is fre-
quently called "unwritten." "In one important
respect England differs conspicuously from most
other countries. Her constitution is to a large
extent unwritten, using the word in much the same
sense as when we speak of unwritten law. Its
rules can be found in no written document, but
depend, as so much of English law does, on pre-
cedent modified by a constant process of interpreta-
the primitive and simple societies of the present or of the former
times. The discussion of forms of government occupies a large
space in the writings of the Greek philosophers, — a fact which is
to be explained by the existence among the Greeks of many
independent political communities, variously organized, and more
or less democratic in character. Between the political problems
of the smaller societies and those of the great European nations
there is no useful parallel to be drawn, although the predomin-
ance of classical learning made it the fashion for a long time to
apply Greek speculations on the nature of monarchy, aristocracy,
and democracy to public questions in modern Europe. Repre-
sentation . . . the characteristic principle of European constitu-
tions, has, of course, no place in societies which were not too
large to admit of every free citizen participating personally in
the business of government. Nor is there much in the politics
or the political literature of the Romans to compare with the
constitutions of modern states. Their political system, almost
from the beginning of the empire, was ruled absolutely by a
small assembly or by one man."
GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICES 97
tion. Many rules of the constitution have in fact
a purely legal history, that is to say, they have
been developed by the law courts, as part of the
general body of the common law. Others have in
a similar way been developed by the practice of
parliament. Both Houses, in fact, have exhibited
the same spirit of adherence to precedent, coupled
with a power of modifying precedent to suit circum-
stances, which distinguishes the judicial tribunals.
In a constitutional crisis the House of Commons
appoints a committee to ' search its journals for
precedents,' just as the court of king's bench would
examine the records of its own decisions. And
just as the law, while professing to remain the
same, is in process of constant change, so, too, the
unwritten constitution is, without any acknowledg-
ment of the fact, constantly taking up new
ground." 1 " ' Constitutional law,' as the expression
is used in England, both by the public and by
authoritative writers, consists of two elements.
The one element, which I have called the 'law
of the constitution ' is a body of undoubted law ; the
other element, which I have called the ' conven-
tions of the constitution,' consists of maxims and
practices which, though they regulate the ordinary
conduct of the Crown and of Ministers and of
others under the constitution, are not in strictness
laws at all." 2 It must be borne in mind that
Parliament, and Parliament alone, can change these
laws of the Constitution, and that the change can
occur whenever a majority of Parliament so decides.
1 Ency. Brit., vol. vii. p. 15.
2 A. V. Dicey, The Law of the Constitution, London, 1885,
98 THE PAN-ANGLES
What these traditions are changes from year to
year and even from day to day — in fact, it is diffi-
cult to find two Britishers who will agree on what
is the Constitution at a given date, so greatly are
these traditions a matter of personal, not national,
In each of the other Pan-Angle countries the
Constitution consists of laws and traditions similar
to those in the British Isles, plus a written docu-
ment (or documents) which is a power of attorney
limiting in certain ways the power of the national
representatives — be they executive, judicial, or
legislative. These written documents are either
enactments of the Parliament of the British Isles,
or successors to such enactments. The Canadian
Constitution was drafted in London by delegates
from the Canadian colonies and various British
officials, 1 and was passed by the British Isles
Parliament, March 29, 1867, to take effect July 1.
It was never submitted to the people, 2 although it
was pleaded that the general election which ensued
was "virtual ratification." The Australian Con-
stitution, drafted by Australians in a national con-
stitutional convention, ratified by referenda in each
colony, 3 now to become a " state," was altered by
the British Isles Parliament only in reference to
the clause which prohibited appeals to the King in
Council, and was passed by that Parliament July 9,
1900, to take effect January 1, 1901. The South
1 H. E. Egerton, Federations and Unions within the British
Empire, Oxford, 1911, p. 33.
2 Gold win Smith, " Canada, England, and the States," in
Contemporary Review, London, March 1907, p. 351.
3 Ency. Brit., vol. ii. p. 966.
GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICES 99
African Constitution was drafted in South Africa
by South Africans in a national constitutional
convention, ratified by the legislatures in three of
the South African provinces, and in Natal by a
referendum of the voters, was altered by the British
Isles Parliament only in reference to matters affect-
ing " natives " and " Asiatics," and was passed by
that Parliament September 20, 1909, to take effect
May 31, 1910. 1 The Constitutions of New Zealand
and Newfoundland are to be found in the charters
and enactments framed in London for their govern-
ment, and are historically similar in composition to
the constitutions of the thirteen American colonies.
The American Constitution was based on the
previous experience of the race, especially as
acquired under various colonial charters. It was
drafted at a national convention, and was subse-
quently ratified by state representative conventions
successively. The work of the National Convention
" was a work of selection, not a work of creation,
. . . the success of their work was not a success of
invention, always most dangerous in government,
but a success of judgment, of selective wisdom,
of practical sagacity, — the only sort of success in
politics which can ever be made permanent." 2 The
American people changed governmental responsi-
bility from the British Isles to themselves, but did
not and could not change the source of their ideas.
Such written documents are so often referred to
as " The Constitution " that citizens of some of the
1 W. B. Worsfold, The Union of South Africa, London, 1912,
2 Woodrow Wilson, The State, 1897, Boston, rev. ed., 1911,
100 THE PAN-ANGLES
six younger nations often assume that " The
Constitution" is the whole Constitution of their
respective governments. The first such written
power of attorney to the legislators, and as such an
expression of the views then held by a certain body
politic, was signed aboard the Mayflower in 1620. 1
This Constitution by which the forty-one signers
"solemnly and mutually . . . covenant and com-
bine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for
our better ordering and preservation and furtherance
of the ends aforesaid ; and by virtue hereof to
enact, constitute and frame — [laws] — unto which
we promise all due submission and obedience," 2
did not, however, supersede all other, including
unwritten, governmental traditions of that body
politic. Constitutions written later have similarly
left for their respective groups much continuing
tradition, that has been respected and has been
enlarged upon. We have written down that which
we felt strongly about, but we have also continued
other customs. Written " constitutions " have
been expressions of public belief as to the form of
framework of any given body politic, but for in-
terpretation they have had to rely on unwritten
or previously written tradition, as developed to
meet arising needs. The mere writing has not
arrested our constitutional growth nor rendered
inflexible our governmental forms.
The American Constitution consists really of
1 Ency. Brit., vol. xvii. p. 858: "Finding themselves without
warrant in a region beyond their patent, . . . they drew up and
signed before landing a democratic compact of government which
is accounted the earliest written constitution in history. "
2 Ibid., vol. xvii. p. 858.
GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICES 101
two portions, the written and the unwritten. The
tenacity with which the nation clings to certain tra-
ditions never put in writing or even at variance with
the spirit of the writing, makes it advisable, if not
absolutely necessary, so to consider it. Lord Bryce,
familiar with the nature of the British Constitution,
calls the usages that have grown up apart from the
written Constitution " parts of the actual or (so to
speak) * working ' Constitution " * of America. As
illustrative of the latter he mentions certain
American customs : " The president practically is
limited to two continuous terms of office. The
presidential electors are expected to vote for the
candidate of the party which has chosen them,
exercising no free will of their own. The Senate
always confirms the nominations to a cabinet office
made by the President." 2 These instances, of what
he calls the American working Constitution, are
supported by the same force that maintains the
entire British Constitution — public opinion.
To the Britisher, this point of view is thoroughly
natural. He has at home a Constitution which is
also compounded of written and unwritten parts.
To the American this phraseology may sound
strange, for he has long been accustomed to think
the " Constitution " refers to a particular written
document and the judicial decisions thereunder.
For the unwritten or working basis of his govern-
ment he has had no word.
The real difference in the two Constitutions must
be sought in the amending power. To the amending
of the unwritten portions of either there is no check
on Parliament or on Congress, other than public
1 Ency. Brit., vol. xxvii. p. 658. 2 Ibid.
102 THE PAN-ANGLES
opinion. To the amending of the written portion
of the British Constitution, there is likewise no
check other than public opinion. Parliament
amends the written and unwritten portions of the
Constitution, — at the will of a majority of the
House of Commons. Congress cannot so amend
the written portions of the American Constitution ;
that is a prerogative of the voters alone. Therein
lies the mystery of the alleged respective " flexity "
and "rigidity" of the two. But the mystery is
less, and the distinctions of flexity and rigidity grow
of uncertain value when it is realized that both
Constitutions are being constantly changed by the
genius of our race. As in the case of our laws, our
Constitutions are being steadily interpreted in
accord with the will of the voters. That we do
not change more suddenly is due to the conservative,
yet discreet, action of our representatives, sanctioned
by the voters.
An enactment of Parliament at variance with
the British Constitution changes that Constitution.
An enactment of Congress at variance with the
written portion of the American Constitution does
not change the Constitution but remains at variance
with it. To uphold the written Constitution in
such a case and to insist on the priority of its terms
over the acts performed by representatives acting
under it, early became the self-imposed duty of the
American courts. " But this, although, as we may
well think, a sound conclusion, was not a necessary
one ; and it was long denied by able statesmen,
judges, and lawyers." 1 This function of the courts
was for years a unique feature of the United
1 J. B. Thayer, John Marshall, Boston, 1901, p. 63
GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICES 103
States government. " The right to deal thus with
their legislatures had already been asserted in the
States, and once or twice it had really been
exercised. Had the question related to a conflict
between that [federal written] Constitution and the
enactment of a State, it would have been a simpler
matter. These two questions, under European
written constitutions, are regarded as different ones.
It is almost necessary to the working of a federal
system that the general government, and each of
its departments, should be free to disregard acts of
any departments of the local states which may be
inconsistent with the federal constitution. And so
in Switzerland and Germany the federal courts
thus treat local enactments. But there is not
under any written constitution in Europe a country
where a court deals in this way with the acts of its
coordinate legislature." 1
Because the power to amend the written Con-
stitution is not in Congress, it has come about that
courts see to it that the will of the popular power
so expressed shall not be ignored or vitiated by
those who are the servants of that popular power.
Because the power to amend the written portions
of the British Constitution is in Parliament, there
can be no clash between the wishes of Parliament
and its Constitution. What Parliament does is the
final test of what the Constitution is.
From the different powers of Parliament and
Congress in regard to their respective national
Constitutions comes the ambiguity of Pan- Angle
usage of the word "unconstitutional."
In the British Isles " unconstitutional " referring
1 J. B. Thayer, John Marshall, Boston, 1901, p. 6l.
104 THE PAN-ANGLES
to parliamentary action means that someone con-
siders it not consistent with established British
political customs. Yet, if the British Parliament
enacts any legislation it must be constitutional,
because the legislation by its mere enactment is
proved not inconsistent with the views of the
temporary majority in Parliament. Various British
kings have been elected by the Witan and by
Parliament ; one king was beheaded by the same
popular authority; at various dates the duties of
kingship have been altered. All these acts were
constitutional the day they were voted. It was
therefore correct to say in 1910 that the British
Constitution " can be torn up by the mere vote of
a temporary majority in the two houses of Parlia-
ment." 1 Since 1911 it would be equally correct to
say that such power is now in one House — the
House of Commons. It is evident that, " This
arrangement, while it makes for flexibility, may
be a source of grave danger in the hands of an
unscrupulous majority." 2
That forces other than parliamentary majorities
may come to exercise more direct control over the
British Constitution is not impossible. In the
excitement of discussing the place of the House
of Lords in the government of the British Isles,
the party leaders in 1910, after the death of
Edward VII., held a conference. Although they
failed to find a consensus of opinion on the best
framework for the British Isles government,
" The significance of the Conference lies in the
precedent it creates for the alteration of the national
1 Round Table, London, November 1910, p. 62.
2 Ibid., p. 62.
GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICES 105
constitution by the expedient of conference and
compromise, instead of by the steam-rolling of a
party machine." * Concerning this same conference
another writer observes, " whether in itself it be
a development of our Constitution, as some people
affirm, or an encroachment on our Constitution,
which is the complaint of others, it has at any rate
affected our Constitution very materially, simply
by its existence." 2 If such a conference after
deliberating were to lay its conclusions before the
people for ratification, it would be analogous to the
national constitutional conventions which since the
early American experiments have been familiar to
the Fan- Angle world. From this the British Isles
might come to have a " written constitution " in
the same sense that the Constitutions of the United
States, Canada, and Australia are written.
For the present, the plan of parliamentary govern-
ment control which is the British Constitution while
successful is, as the above quotations evidence, hazy.
And in the British Isles it is fair to consider that
" unconstitutional " means " unusual." 3
With Americans the word " unconstitutional "
never in popular practice has the comprehensive and
indefinite British meaning. As Americans have
no term in common use to denote the unwritten
part of their Constitution, so they have none at
all with which to refer to an infraction of it. The
1 Round Table, London^, November 1910, p. 62.
2 " Pacificus," Federalism and Home Rule, London, 1910, p. 2.
3 Ency. Brit., vol. vii. p. 15 : "Again, as a term of party
politics, constitutional has come to mean, in England, not
obedience to constitutional rules , . . but adherence to the
existing type of the constitution or to some conspicuous portions
thereof, — in other words, conservative."
106 THE PAN-ANGLES
expression has yet to be coined for the American
public to employ should the Electoral College act
as it did in Washington's day, viz. each elector
exercise his individual discretion in voting for a
president, or should a president be elected for a
third term, whether or not consecutive. In either
of these instances the change could not be uncon-
stitutional in the American sense, though it would
be unconstitutional in the British sense. In the
former case, the procedure would be a return to
what was once entirely usual in the American
practice, and called for by the one-time working
interpretation of the written Constitution. In the
latter case, it would be a change to what has never
been forbidden by the American written Consti-
tution, but to what is now forbidden by the un-
written Constitution. In either of these cases, what
would the American courts decide ? They would
find no violation of the written Constitution, but
only of the present unwritten or working Con-
stitution. The American can console himself in
his ignorance by the oft-quoted remark : " The
Supreme Court has the last guess." The word
" unconstitutional " refers to an enactment in such
conflict with the written Constitution and decisions
thereunder, that American courts will not consider
it legal. When legislation beyond the powers con-
ferred by the written Constitution is attempted
and a case, for whose decision it is necessary to
decide the power of Congress so to enact, is brought
to the courts, they will declare the attempted
legislation void. The courts, and they alone, have
this power. Hence the word " unconstitutional "
in America means illegal.
GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICES 107
In 1913 occurred a modification of the American
unwritten or working Constitution which may or
may not pass into a permanent change. George
Washington and John Adams addressed Congress
orally on public affairs. Thomas Jefferson, the
third president, being a poor speaker, changed this
part of the working Constitution by addressing
Congress through written messages. This custom
remained as a revision of the working Constitution
until 1913. Of this tradition Wilson wrote in
1898 : " Hence a sacred rule of constitutional
action I" 1 In 1913 he, as president, reverted from
this " sacred rule " to the oral custom of Washing-
ton, and the country's comment was largely com-
mendatory. In this instance it is likely that the
Supreme Court may not guess at all !
Illustrative of the British significance of " uncon-
stitutional " is quoted the following, written in 1910 :
" It is an undoubted rule of the English constitu-
tion that the king shall not refuse his assent to a
bill which has passed both Houses of Parliament,
but it is certainly not a law. Should the king
veto such a bill his action would be unconstitu-
tional, but not illegal." 2 A corresponding Ameri-
can example might be furnished by the action of
an American president in issuing an order, without
being authorized thereto by Congress, temporarily
repealing part of a tariff bill. Such an act being
outside of the scope of a president's authority
would, if reviewed by a court as part of the ratio
decidendi of a case, be held unconstitutional and
1 Woodrow Wilson, The State, 1898, Boston, rev. ed., 1911,
p. 378. 2 Ency. Brit., vol. vii. p. 14.
108 THE PAN-ANGLES
These British and American usages of " constitu-
tion " and " unconstitutional " are reflected in the
five other Pan- Angle nations. It consequently
behoves one to use either of these words with
careful attention to the meaning desired. But of
each of the seven nations it may be said : that it is
governed under a constitution ; that some part of
its constitution is written ; and that through its
constitution, however amendable, ultimate control
of all questions is in the voters.
Immediate legislative control of these seven
nations is in legislatures composed of representa-
tives who act on behalf of the voters, and subject
to restrictions, if any, by the voters only. Until
1911, one nation, the British Isles, afforded an
exception to this, as its legislative power was
shared by persons who owed their position to their
birth. This instance of presentation in a national
legislature which was composed otherwise of elected
representatives expired before 1911. Since that
date the House of Lords exists, not as a part of the
legislature, but as a consultative body subservient
to the will of the House of Commons. To-day
the legislatures of the Pan- Angle nations are in all
cases representative, and the representatives, how-
ever elected or appointed, act on behalf of the
voters. 1 Those that are considered appointed are
1 The fact that so-called " governors " are sent out from the
British Isles to the five newer Britannic nations does not affect
the statements in this paragraph. Such "governors" do not
share in legislation, but acquiesce in legislation formulated by
others. Such " governors " are best considered as ambassadors
with peculiar local recognition, who act under orders from and
GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICES 109
in reality chosen by a method of indirect election.
For example, in Canada and in New Zealand the
representatives who form the upper houses are
chosen by the majority in the lower houses at
the time of their election. The fact that these
legislators may, in the Canadian case, hold office
for life does not affect the fact that they are
elected, but concerns only their terms of office. In
New Zealand the terms of office of some members
of the upper house is for life, whereas more
recent members have been chosen for a period of
years. In the United States, according to the pro-
visions of the Federal Constitution, the members
of the upper house were formerly chosen by the
state legislatures. They are now, by the pro-
visions of the Constitution, elected directly. 1 In
Australia the upper house members are chosen
by the voters organized in voting districts larger
than those electing representatives. This last is
the method toward which the choice of upper
house members seems in Pan- Angle nations to be
approaching. The discontent in New Zealand and
in behalf of the government of the British Isles, and act also
wherever possible in behalf of all six of the Britannic nations
and their dependencies. Cf. ante, p. 89.
1 The Seventeenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution,
initiated by Congress in 1912, requiring the direct election of
senators by the voters of each state, came into force May 31,
1913. The practical effects of direct election were, however,
previously obtained in some states, the legislatures electing
as senators candidates already designated by the voters. This
instance, in which the working Constitution violated the spirit of
the written Constitution, is interesting as evidence of the flexity
of the American Constitution and of the strength of the spirit
of local self-government. Cf. Britannica Year Book, London,
1913, pp. 744-745.
110 THE PAN-ANGLES
Canada at their present methods and the recent
change in America indicate this trend. This ten-
dency emphasizes the insistence of the voters that
representatives are responsible only to the voters.
That such representatives are subject to restric-
tions, if any, by the voters only, is a statement
qualified solely by the technical exception that
some of the Britannic nations act under Con-
stitutions enacted for them by another nation,
viz. the British Isles. This exception is more
true in theory than in reality. If in some of the
Britannic nations, such as New Zealand and New-
foundland, there have been no ratifications of their
respective frameworks of government, nevertheless
the whole spirit of the people in these countries, as
well as in Canada, where a like state of affairs
exists, and in Australia and South Africa where rati-
fications have occurred on what is in each case sub-
stantially their present Constitution, makes evident
the tendency of each one of these nations to regard
its Constitution as its own act. 1 Consequently, it
is fair to say that acting under authority of the
voters, representatives carry out the national will
in each of the seven Pan- Angle nations.
That executive or administrative control is in
charge of elected persons is true without exception
1 That Australia may change its Constitution regardless of
the wishes of the British Isles, cf. Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act, chapter viii. paragraph 128, and comments
thereon in C. P. Lucas, A Historical Geography of the British
Colonies, vol. vi., Australasia, by A. D. Rogers, Oxford, 1907,
pt. i., p. 289-
GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICES 111
in these seven nations. The methods of choosing
who shall so administer, may be designated
respectively as the British and the American.
Under both plans the executive is chosen by
indirect popular election. The British system
produces a prime minister elected by a majority
of the more popular (in the British Isles the sole)
chamber of the legislature. This prime minister
associates about himself certain other men from
the same chamber to carry on the government for
a certain time, which may be a shorter and therefore
an uncertain time. In the American system the
people elect representatives, called the electors, to
carry out the election of a president. This forlorn
novelty, the Electoral College, shows the futility
among Pan- Angles of new-fangled institutions.
In all other ideas, the framers of the American
Constitution of 1787 followed the evolved and
known usages of the race. " It was only when they
came to construct the machinery for the election
of the President that they left the field of American
experience and English example and devised an
arrangement which was so original that it was
destined to break down almost as soon as it was
put in operation." 1 The true election is no longer
by the electors, but by the people of each state
using their allotted number of electors as so many
counts in favour of one candidate. 2 The president
associates about himself a group of men chosen
from the nation at large. These men act as
1 Woodrow Wilson, The State, 1 898, Boston, rev. ed., 191 1, p. 462.
2 Concerning the alteration in procedure of the American
Electoral College whereby presidential electors are pledged
before their election, cf. Ency. Brit., vol. xxvii. p. 655.
112 THE PAN-ANGLES
secretaries to administer departments in behalf of
the president, and have no seat in the legislative
branch of the government. These two systems
are the types used as models throughout the Pan-
Angle self-governing areas.
In the two plans we have popular election with
virtual similarity. This is remarked in the follow-
ing comment on the choice, in 1841, of a British
national executive : " But the Reform Act of 1832
introduced a new order of things. In 1835 the
result of a general election was for the first time the
direct cause of a change of ministry, and in 1841 a
House of Commons was elected, for the express pur-
pose of bringing a particular statesman into power.
The electorate voted for Sir Robert Peel, and it
would have been as impossible for the house then
elected to deny him their support as it would be
for the college of electors in the United States to
exercise their private judgment in the selection of
a president." * The results of parliamentary general
elections in the British Isles are announced on news-
paper bulletin boards in terms of votes for the
leaders of the opposing parties, just as in America
the state vote is credited directly to the presidential
Adherence to either the American or British
type of executive does not connote a corresponding
similarity in other governmental respects. Australia
has a British style executive in connection with an
American style legislature. Moreover, Australia's
written Constitution has been left unfixed in certain
matters, so that, if after trial the British system of
executive is found wanting, and some modification
1 Ency. Brit. , vol. xx. p. 845.
GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICES 113
shall seem better, a change may be made without
the need of constitutional amendment. 1
While representatives are elected to carry out
the executive will of the voters under both the
British and the American systems, the methods of
discharging that duty present differences. These
may be summed up in the statement that
the British executives take the form of a re-
sponsible cabinet; and the American executives,
both federal and state, take the form of a cabinet
which is not in the same sense responsible. An
explanation lies in the race's experience with
The Teuton executive was in the form of an
elected king who carried out the wishes of the
majority which elected him. He could be and
was deposed at the will of his constituents. In
short, he was a spokesman. As the nationality of
the British Isles crystallized, this spokesman as-
sumed his powers were not subject to recall by his
1 Cf W. H. Moore, The Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Australia, 2nd ed., Melbourne, 1910, p. 297: "Further, the
Constitution recognizes, if it does not establish, the Cabinet
system in the Commonwealth, and the responsibilities of the
Executive extend to the consideration of the subjects committed
to Parliament, and, if need be, to the initiation of legislation
upon them." Also B. R. Wise, The Commonwealth of Australia,
London, 1909, pp- 193-194- : "At the same time, the provisions
which enable its [responsible government] continuance are
sufficiently wide to allow of other systems, should this one prove
unsuited to a Federation. Except that Ministers must sit in
Parliament, there seems no limit to the changes which might
be made with the acquiescence of the Governor-General, in
the method of appointment, tenure of office, or function." Cf.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, chapter i., part i.,
114 THE PAN-ANGLES
fellow-citizens ; considered his office hereditary ;
and undertook to extend his functions in his own
right, not by right of being the spokesman of a
majority to whom he was responsible.
At the time of the American Revolution the
executive office in the British Isles was held in a
way quite unlike the Teuton ideal, and local self-
government had, owing to economic changes, sunk
to a low level. The king and a few of the landed
gentry controlled Parliament and the election of a
large proportion of its members. 1 When, therefore,
the Americans framed their system of government,
they had before them an executive example on
which they wished to improve. They accordingly
created a king who could not initiate or prevent
legislation ; who was automatically recalled every
four years ; and who, in common with all other
citizens, held no title that could be inherited.
Most of the state governments, affected by the
same ideas, have gone further. They have even
taken from the executive the appointment of
judges, making them also elective, though a few
states and the national government continue the
system of appointing the judiciary through the
executive. Further checks to the president's power
were devised in making his appointments to the
executive and judicial services as well as his
negotiations of treaties subject to confirmation by
the Senate. Thus the American president is a
modified eighteenth- century British king.
After America had become independent and had
1 Woodrow Wilson, The State, 1898, Boston, rev. ed., 1911,
p. 389, gives this lack of local self-government as one of the
causes of the American Revolution.
GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICES 115
framed its federal government, the British Isles
electorate gradually reasserted its power, and took
back into the keeping of its elected representatives
the control of executive affairs. 1 That return to
earlier ideas has produced a spokesman who is
elected for five years but may be, and usually is,
recalled before the expiration of this term, — by the
shifting opinion of the voters manifested in the
votes of their representatives in Parliament. This
spokesman is no longer called a king but a prime
minister. " The imperial sovereignty which is
exercised in the name of the King actually
resides in the British Prime Minister, a gentle-
man who holds his office at the pleasure of the
majority of the British House of Commons." 2
He and his associates, chosen from the members
of Parliament, constitute a ministry, of which
a portion is called the cabinet. It is this cabinet,
this managing committee, that both executes the
laws of the British Isles and takes charge of
the legislation desired, supposedly, by a majority
of the British voters. As the voters elect the
members of Parliament and the latter elect the
ministry, and as the ministry cannot continue in
office in the face of an opposing majority in
Parliament, this cabinet executive control is
called a " responsible government," i.e. responsible
directly to the people.
1 Cf. Ency, Brit., vol. xx. pp. 845-849 ; and Britannica Year
Book, London, 1913, pp. 491-497 and 480-482.
2 F. S. Oliver, Alexander Hamilton : An Essay on American Union,
London, 1906, p. 447. Students who are mystified by allusions
to the "Crown," the "King in Council," and the "King has
graciously consented," etc., should find the sentence above
quoted a valuable explanation.
116 THE PAN-ANGLES
In re-attaining the ideal of the Teuton spokes-
man, America has made slight progress in theory,
however much the American president has stood
ready to take such position and however much he
may have tried, despite the conservative form of
constitution he works under, to perform the duties
of such an office. Consequently, the American
executive stands apart from the legislative power
as the British executive stands near, and is part of,
the legislative power. To the American executive
and his cabinet, chosen not from Congress but
from the country at large, is the explicit duty of
administering, not of making, laws, except in so far
as the veto power gives the president some share
in checking legislation. But the instinct of the
race still calls on the president, as though he were
the spokesman of his nation, to assist the other
representatives in making as well as executing the
laws. Signs are not wanting that this same insist-
ence of the voters may bring the American exec-
utive back to the executive-legislative functions
of the race's early spokesmen. At present the
president can interpret the manner in which laws
shall be administered, but if his interpretation
conflicts with the wishes of Congress, it can pass
new enactments not susceptible to such interpreta-
tion. Hence, practically the president can influence
legislation only by his personal force working on
Congress, or by his use of the patronage to induce
congressmen to take action in accord with his
opinion of the national will. There results a
possibility of the use of patronage disastrous to
the administrative efficiency of the nation. To
meet this disastrous use of the patronage, American
GOVERNMENTAL PEACTICES 117
public opinion has demanded the " merit system "
of appointment of all administrative officials of less
station than those political agents who must be in
sympathy with the political ideas from time to time
in the ascendant, as expressed by political parties.
Recognizing this need for efficiency in administra-
tive subordinates, American presidents find it
difficult to utilize the merit system of appointment
and at the same time forward desired legislation.
The personal power of the president backed by
popular opinion is, however, still a force to be
reckoned with by Congress. Through this power
he is able to carry out in part at least the de-
mand made by these political descendants of
the Teutons that their spokesman, and all other
representatives, shall carry out the legislation the
Although Alexander Hamilton was unable to
obtain a realization of his desires to see the
cabinet officers entitled to seats in Congress, the
president is called on by the written Constitution
to report to Congress on " the state of the Union,
and recommend to their consideration such measures
as he shall judge necessary and expedient." 1 In
reality he does more, and in accordance with the work-
ing Constitution actually furthers the legislative pro-
gramme called for by his party's majority. He may,
if the instincts of American public opinion demand
it, easily evolve into a responsible spokesman with
other administrative officers about him, much after
the similitude of a British responsible cabinet
ministry. How this may occur by change in
either the working or the written Constitution,
1 Constitution of the United States,, art. ii. sec. 3.
118 THE PAN-ANGLES
or both, it is unnecessary here to elaborate.
Enough to show that this present difference in
the American and British executives is a result of
historical conditions working in both branches of
The representatives who carry out the political
will of a Pan-Angle nation are called in America
the Administration and in the other six nations
the Government. This diversity of terminology
may produce misunderstanding, as in the case
of " constitution " — the more so as " government "
has another meaning common to all Pan-Angles,
viz. control of peoples. 1 A proverbial Irishman
landed in America is asked with which party he
sympathizes, and retorts that he is " against the
Government." He means probably that he is
opposed to the ministry of the day in the British
Isles — in short, sympathizes with some Opposition
ideas. The American hearer, unaccustomed to
the word in this specialized sense, may be astonished
at what seems an outburst of anarchy. Later our
Irishman, become an American, would reply to
the same question about his politics, that he was,
or was not, in favour of the Administration. But
whichever term is used, Administration or Govern-
ment, it refers alike to those elected representatives
who, by the use of their own discretion, or following
the instruction of their voters, or by a combination
1 Woodrow Wilson, The State, 1898, Boston, rev. ed., 1911,
p. 572: "Government, in its last analysis, is organized
force. . . . The machinery of government necessary to such
an organization consists of instrumentalities fitted to enforce
in the conduct of the common affairs of the community the will
of the sovereign men : the sovereign minority, or the sovereign
GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICES 119
of both methods, conduct the executive business
of their nation.
Because the seven Pan-Angle nations are similar
in their forms of government they are in a position
to establish a common government. All take for
granted the same theories and practically the same
procedures. Because these theories and procedures
work successfully as they are applied to the
government of each nation, Pan- Angles will be
predisposed to believe that they will work when
applied to a government of the whole race.
Danger may arise to menace the Pan- Angle
civilization from three sources : from within any
of the seven groups ; from between any of the
groups ; or from outside civilizations.
The first of these sources exists in every body
politic. Civil discord whenever it becomes active
must be cured as it develops — from within. The
soundness of a nation lies in its ability to cope
with internal disorder and still maintain its integ-
rity before the world. Any interference, however
kindly meant, only exasperates those on the spot.
No Britisher, for example, can improve the situa-
tion in South Africa by sympathizing with
" Hindus " that South Africa does not want. 1
And especially is it true among Pan- Angles to
whom local self-government is instinctive, that
1 The Times, London, November 28, 1913, Cape Town
despatch concerning Lord Hardinge's speech at Madras,
November 26, in reference to treatment of Indians in South
Africa states : " After criticizing severely several passages in
the speech, the Cape Times, referring to the suggestion that the
Imperial Government should intervene in South Africa, utters
the warning that this way madness lies."
each political entity must look to the order of its
The second source of danger is more grave.
As long as the seven nations remain in real
or hazily defined independence of each other
frictions are bound to arise. These frictions
may grow from the competitions of commerce.
They may cause reprisals of commerce. Com-
merce affords the quickest attack on a nation's
standard of living. Those who abhor war often
overlook the fact that trade reprisal may also
produce similar inexpressible suffering. The
frictions of commerce in the thirteen American
nations in the eighteenth century, the similar
discords in Australia before 1900, and in South
Africa before 1910, point the same lesson — an
adequate central government to adjust such differ-
ences. While lacking such an adequate central
government for the seven Pan-Angle nations, our
only recourse when interests conflict is to our
Within a nation a government hales offenders
before a court empowered to enforce its decisions.
Between nations there is no such tribunal. A
court is " a body in the government to which the
public administration of justice is delegated." 1
This presupposes in the court power to bring
parties before it ; a law governing the case ; and
power to enforce a decision. The Hague Tribunal
or any other existing so-called " international
1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Rawle's revision, Boston, 1897,
122 THE PAN-ANGLES
arbitration court " has no one of these three attri-
butes. It is no court at all. Any body of pre-
sumably well-intentioned persons anywhere can
listen to a dispute and give advice. This is all
the Hague Tribunal, for all its name, can do.
The contending parties can take the advice or not
as they like. No parties can be compelled to
appear before this non-governmental body ; no one
can know beforehand, except by frangible mutual
agreement with his opponents and with the
" court," what rules are to govern the decision ;
and on no party can a decision be enforced. " In
international affairs the primitive rule, that * might
is right ' still holds good, for either side to a quarrel
can insist on a resort to force. In the outer void
of world politics there is no reign of law, for there
is no law-maker ; there is no assured justice, for
there is no judge ; there is no safety for the
weak, for there are no police to whom they can
" Why is this ? It is because no nation is
willing to submit its destinies to a tribunal over
which it has no control, or to surrender its arma-
ments to a world authority which will use them
to enforce some international code of its own
creation. " 1
Inter-Pan- Angle frictions in the past have been
numerous, the American Revolution being merely
the most disastrous. Troubles that have arisen
1 Round Table, London, February 1911, pp. 107-108; cf. also
Round Table, December 1912, p. 29: "Arbitration is no cure
for war so long as there is no agreement between nations to
substitute arbitration for war, and no power strong enough to
enforce such an agreement if made."
between the British Isles and Canada and between
the British Isles and the United States since the
peace of 1814 may be passed over because more
happily terminated. 1 Other of the nations have
likewise had their family quarrels with the British
Isles. Three years before the Boer War, a South
African wrote : " The most powerful factor which
makes for disunion at present is the interference
of the British Government in the internal affairs
of South Africa. . . . England's periods of active
interference in South Africa have always been
disastrous to herself and to South Africa — indeed
the present troubles may all be traced directly to
Lord Carnarvon's attempt to force his policy on
South Africa." 2 Twelve years later, the Boer War
being over, and the union of the four South African
provinces being not yet accomplished, another
South African wrote : " Directly after [after the
Chinese indentured labourers in the Transvaal were
1 freed ' by the British Isles Government] 3 came
the Zulu rebellion in Natal, and so enraged were
the South African colonies, so bitter and so angry
with the Home Government, that, had it been
possible, they would have broken away. Given
another crisis of the kind in more prosperous times,
and the British will go solid with the Dutch for
independence and a Republic." 4 The same dangers
lurked in the recent suggestion that the British
1 For an account of some of these discords, cf H. C. Lodge,
One Hundred Years of Peace, New York, 1913 ; also Round Table,
London, December 1913, pp. 106-122.
2 P. A. Molteno, A Federal South Africa, London, 1 896, p. viii.
3 Concerning these Chinese coolies, cf. Ency. Brit., vol. xxv.
4 M. C. Bruce, The New Transvaal, London, 1908, p. 111.
124 THE PAN-ANGLES
Isles should interfere in South Africa in reference
to Asiatic Indians in Natal.
Nor is it alone in the realms of legislation and
administration where partisan politics may be
factors that such frictions arise. The Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council of the British
Isles is still, however rarely used, the supreme
appellate court for the five over-seas Britannic
nations. Against its fitness for the position, the
Court of Appeal of New Zealand in 1903 passed
formal and deliberate resolutions — reading, in part,
as follows : " That the decisions of this Court
should continue to be subject to review by a
higher Court is of the utmost importance. The
knowledge that a decision can be reviewed is good
alike for Judges and litigants. Whether, however,
they should be reviewed by the Judicial Committee
as at present constituted is a question worthy of
consideration. That Court, by its imputations in
the present case, by the ignorance it has shown in
this and other cases of our history, of our legisla-
tion and of our practice, and by its long-delayed
judgments, has displayed every characteristic of an
alien tribunal. If we have spoken strongly it is
because we feel deeply. And we speak under
grievous and unexampled provocation." 1 It is
inevitable that different political groups without
1 (t Proceedings in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand with
reference to comments made upon that Court by the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Wall is and
Others, Appellants, and His Majesty's Solicitor-General for the
Colony of New Zealand, Respondent. Together with the Judg-
ments of the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council in the same
Case," Dunedin [New Zealand], 1903, p. 28.
more adequate cohesion than sentiment and shift-
ing political desires should have had such family
quarrels. It is unnecessary here to quote other
instances from the past.
To-day's inter-Pan- Angle frictions are the inevit-
able results of the inter-national conflicts of local
national policies. Some of them are trivial ; others,
vital. And from even trivial questions improperly
handled grow wars. "A White Australia," " No
Indians for the Transvaal," " No Hindus for British
Columbia," * are familiar slogans suggesting all sorts
of possible disagreements for the settlement of
which there is no court in existence. The ques-
tions of Asiatic migrations are not trivial to the six
nations exasperated thereby. Yet even if all these
questions were removed, there would remain many
opportunities for discord still unadjusted. For the
six Britannic nations Downing Street is the only
medium for adjusting such discords. And the lack
of power behind the decrees of Downing Street
results in an accumulation of makeshifts that is
provocative of future troubles.
Between the United States and the British Isles
the Monroe Doctrine has at times bulked large as
a possible source of disagreement. The question
of Panama Canal tolls has recently rasped these
nations' amiability. It is worth while to examine
into these trouble breeders and to see how the situ-
ations would be altered if the two countries were
1 " Hindus" (an unfortunate application of a religious creed-
name to a people) who had been admitted to the Philippines
and who sailed from Manila to San Francisco were debarred
entrance to United States, according to Springfield (Massa-
chusetts) Weekly Republican, December 11, 1913.
126 THE PAN- ANGLES
treating not as independent units but as parties to
a huge federation.
The Monroe Doctrine was dictated to American
statesmen by the fear of Europe. To the people
of the United States its maintenance has meant
safety from aggression. It has lived by their sanc-
tion alone. " It would have been forgotten within
60 days after President Monroe first formulated
it in a presidential message if it had not met with a
response in popular feeling. . . . the popular feel-
ing existed long before Monroe was president, for
Jefferson stated principles of foreign policy which
embodied the ideas associated now for 90 years
with Monroe's name. ... And thus America has
always, down to the present crisis with Mexico,
followed the national instinct concerning entangle-
ments on its own part in Europe's affairs, and
interferences on Europe's part in the affairs of this
hemisphere." ..." Whenever a specific issue arises
in our relations with Latin- America, a practical test
of what the public feeling in this country amounts
to is offered. Our history for the past dozen years
abounds in ' incidents ' that revealed the public
temper. It is certain that whenever such a test
has been made in the Latin-American states around
the Caribbean Sea, the fear of the jealousy of Euro-
pean encroachment manifests itself instantly and
warns the administration of the day what the
people expect the government to do. The Monroe
doctrine, or the idea, feeling or instinct upon which
it is based, thus is repeatedly referred to the people
for a fresh expression of their sentiment, and there
is no prospect that it will become an obsolete
feature of our foreign policy so long as these re-
current tests find the people vitally interested in
its preservation." 1
The maintenance of the Monroe Doctrine, what-
ever it may mean, is to the American voter what
the maintenance of a Big Fleet, whatever the size
may be, is to the British voter. A Britannic
authority thus expresses the feelings of the average
Britisher : " Our ' man on the omnibus ' has never
failed as yet to respond to an agitation on behalf
of the Fleet. He did so instantly in 1909, and he
will always do so again. Given a serious division
between the parties on the naval question, there
can be no doubt which will win. . . . Whenever
the controversy is taken to the country, the country
decides for the larger Fleet." 2 The American
Monroe Doctrine and the British Big Fleet are the
outcome of the instinctive fears Pan- Angles hold
The Monroe Doctrine was not designed as a
weapon against the British Isles any more than the
Big Fleet is built to fight American ships. The
older country was in hearty agreement with
President Monroe's original pronouncement. " In-
deed it was Canning's policy, summed up three
years later by his famous reference to the necessity
of calling the New World into existence to restore
the balance of the Old." 3 As long, however, as
the British Isles remains an outsider it falls within
the definition of "any European power" of the
message, just as there is nothing to prevent the
1 Springjield (Massachusetts) Weekly Republican, November 27,
1913 : "The Monroe Doctrine Today."
2 Round Table, London, September 1913, p. 680.
3 Cf. Ency. Brit., vol. xviii. p. 739.
128 THE PAN-ANGLES
United States, as long as it remains an outsider,
from suffering from the strength of the Big
The two countries are independent now and
must in the last resort each protect itself from
the other, however much they may prefer friend-
ship. As members of a federation each would
be spared the necessity of self-protection against
the other. In such event the Monroe Doctrine
would apply to non-Pan-Angles only and the
Fleet would be the instrument by which it was
The question of Canal tolls to many Americans
to-day is a matter of only national, not international,
politics. They believe tolls should be paid for
Canal privileges. They also, however, seek a means
of lowering transcontinental freight rates. As
only American ships are allowed by law to engage
in American coastwise trade, these are the only
competitors of the railroads. To free such ships
from Canal tolls might be a means toward lowering
transcontinental freight rates. Those Americans
who so believe are pleased if the Hay-Pauncefoote
treaty seems to allow an interpretation favourable
to their purpose. Other Americans believe no
such interpretation possible, whatever the problems
of national economics. To both, however, outside
criticism of " violation of treaty " may induce
merely the exasperation that leads to refusal to
discuss the question.
The difficulty, as our nations are now organized,
is that a question of mutual interest is decided by
the majority in power in one of the nations. In
the present instance it was the United States that
controlled the situation. The United States de-
cided. Afterwards the British Isles might, if it
wished, protest in terms of whatever mildness or
vigour its public policy dictated. The British
Government has shown itself forbearing. It pro-
tested but did not press its claims in terms in-
compatible with peaceful relations. The American
government, unantagonized, was left in a mood to
review the matter and, as seems probable, to alter
its previous decision. In some other matter the
tables may be reversed. The British Isles may
hold in its power the solution of some question of
interest to the United States. And the United
States may have only the opportunity to remon-
strate in its turn against what it considers an " un-
fair " interpretation of a treaty. Such remonstrance
is apt to be tinged with hostility, the thing we wish
most of all to avoid. Having no common govern-
ment, the two nations have no court to decide the
case. Were they members of a federation, such
machinery would be established and in constant
Separate political existences of seven Pan- Angle
nations do not make for peace. If for us is coming
the great millennium, so sweetly dreamed of by so
many, it will not come the sooner by perpetuating
opportunities for discord. A common government
over Pan- Angles would be copying what we have
already done successfully in smaller " closer unions."
Before the formation of one of these, it was stated :
" Three choices therefore lie before the people of
South Africa. The make-shift regime of the High
Commissioner, the jarring separation of the States
of South America, the noble union of the States of
130 THE PAN-ANGLES
North America." 1 This might be paraphrased.
Three choices lie before the Pan- Angles : the
make-shift regime of Downing Street and the
gambling uncertainties of arbitration boards, the
jarring separation we have known in our past, the
noble method of union which our race has evolved,
tested, and in four separate nations adopted. By
solving our inter-national differences of opinion in
a federal government we can husband our strength
for self-defence as a united power against other
Despite our self-esteem we are not the only
civilization in the world. There are others who
need land for their children, as much or more than
we do. These others wish to see the world
" bettered " by their ideas. If we are wise we shall
recognize these foreign aspirations to be as normal
as our own. As we have progressed other civiliza-
tions have progressed, even though differently.
And difference does not mean inferiority. Once
we could believe that our rivals, personal, national,
or racial, were bad because different ; but nowadays
we cannot call it wrong when others, less favourably
situated than we in the sunshine of this world,
strive like ourselves for comfort. " The tragedy
of history is not the conflict between right and
wrong, but the conflict between right and right."
Each civilization knows it is right. Each is right
1 A Review of the Present Mutual Relations of the British South
African Colonies, to which is appended a Memorandum on South
African Railway Unification, " Printed by Authority " [Johannes-
burg, 1907]; Lord Selborne's letter of January 1, 1907, p. viii.
till another civilization is proved to be not only
right, but better. A civilization is better than
ours if it shall prove its people able to conquer our
people — through cutting off our food by more re-
sourceful trading, thriftier living, or war. As it has
always been since the Pan-Angles were a people,
the world is now an inter-civilization competition
selecting the fittest to survive.
Four nations of men, white like ourselves and
holding some of the same ideals, have been in the
past our life and death rivals. Spain, Portugal,
Holland, and France all were great before we were.
They discovered and pre-empted a large part of
the world. To the shores of almost every one of
the seven Pan-Angle nations their keels have come
with intent to seize land. Our rivals often suc-
ceeded and held the land for a time until we grew
strong enough to take it from them. Our struggles
against these out-run powers make thrilling stories,
for they tested the courage, the resources, and the
tenacity of the Pan- Angle victors.
Portugal and Spain once shared between them
the seas of the world — according to a Pope's decree.
They raced in opposite directions to see which first
should reach the Antipodes. Macao and Manila,
lying opposite each other, show where the two
routes terminated. To-day Spain holds no land
outside of Europe except the Canaries and odd
inconsequential bits of Africa. From before the
days of the Armada to the conclusion of the
Spanish -American War, Pan -Angles have been
plundering Spain. Some of the spoils they kept
for themselves, some they gave away. The
Ladrones in a recent division were allotted to
132 THE PAN-ANGLES
Germany. Portugal holds more extensive re-
minders of its former empire. The Azores, the
Cape Verdes, Timor and Goa, and strips of East
and West Africa show where that nation was once
supreme. Both the African areas are bordered by
Pan- Angle and German holdings, and it requires
no shrewd forecasting to predict their future. 1
Holland holds the Dutch East Indies — a
dependency huge in extent and population as
compared to the tiny European state, 2 but small
compared to the lands adapted for true coloniza-
tion, long ago relinquished. Holland holds also
certain remnants in the Western Hemisphere,
as Spain and Portugal do not. But like Spain
and Portugal, Holland holds these dependencies
not by virtue of its own strength, but by
virtue of the matched strength of others, the
balance of power leaving Holland for the present
France, the most recent of these four rivals of
the Pan-Angles, to-day holds dependencies of
1 Sir Harry H. Johnston in Nineteenth Century, London, March
1912, questions the appropriateness of leaving these dependencies
in the care of Portugal. CJ., thirteen months later, Springjleld
(Massachusetts) Weekly Republican, June 12, 1913: " That some-
thing is brewing in the way of a partition of Portuguese Africa
seems likely despite official disclaimers, and the London Spectator
now sketches a hypothetical division. ..." Cf. Transvaal Leader,
Johannesburg, December 5, 1912, for an account of Lourenco
Marques' ' ' warning against the neglectful attitude of the Home
[Lisbon] Government toward this Colony."
2 The ratio of the population of British India to the British
Isles is approximately 7 to 1. A like ratio exists between the
populations of the Dutch Indies and Holland. CJ. A. Cabaton,
Java, Sumatra, and the other Islands of the Dutch East Indies, trans.
Bernard Miall, London, 19 H, p. 26,
greater area than those of the three other rivals
combined. 1 Over lands on, or islands near, every
continent, the French flag flies. Only the flags of
the British Isles and of Russia are to-day further
flung. No one feels confident of despoiling France
at will, and the British Isles regards its late rival as
an effective ally. Yet the French hold no true
colonies, lands in which France grows again in a
new life. Canada and Louisiana are now the
nurseries of a vigorous Pan-Angle stock.
Towards these four out-run powers we harbour
no unfriendly sentiments. They, alone or com-
bined, can no longer hurt us. We have grown so
large and control so vast an area and population
that we forget that these rivals once threatened
our existence. The place-names they gave and
many of their words, now part of the English
language, hardly recall the old struggles. So
thoroughly have we taken the lands they claimed,
that with our own history we associate such names
as Columbus, Da Gama, Magellan, Van Diemen,
Tasman, Champlain, and La Salle. With our
former competitors we can make alliances, if we
wish, for the sake of guarding them and ourselves
from the powers that loom out of the future.
But because of such friendly alliances we must
not lose sight of the truth. Our present supremacy
we hold not by the courtesy of these our former
rivals, but by the might of our forefathers, who
by their strength procured lands for us. The past
secured to us the present. The visible method
was war. " Between the [English] Revolution and
1 George Philip & Son Ltd., Chamber of Commerce Atlas,
London, 1912, p. 32.
134 THE PAN-ANGLES
the Battle of Waterloo, it may be reckoned that
we waged seven great wars, of which the shortest
lasted seven years and the longest about twelve.
Out of a hundred and twenty-six years, sixty-four
years, or more than half, were spent in war." 1 At
the end of these wars the Pan-Angles had outrun
their rivals. 2 That century and a quarter witnessed
the steady extension of the Pan- Angle control in
North America. " The struggle was literally world-
wide. Red men scalped each other by the Great
Lakes of North America, and black men fought in
Senegal in Africa ; while Frenchmen and English-
men grappled in India as well as in Germany, and
their fleets engaged on every sea. The most tre-
mendous and showy battles took place in Germany ;
and, though the real importance of the struggle lay
outside Europe, still the European conflict in the
main decided the wider results. William Pitt, the
English minister, who was working to build up the
great British empire, declared that in Germany
he would conquer America from France. He did
so." 3 Taxation in Massachusetts during one of
the years of this war was equivalent to an income
tax of 66 per cent. 4 After Waterloo for over half
a century this extension continued. In this
struggle for our world domination, in which
American and Britannic Pan-Angles each did their
share, we showed we were fighters. We fought to
win. We won.
1 J. R. Seeley, The Expansion of England, London, 1883, p. 20.
2 CJ. W. M. West, Modern History, Boston, rev. ed., 1907,
3 Ibid., pp. 294, 295.
4 C. A. W. Pownall, Thomas Pownall, London, 1908, p. 95.
This was as of 1758.
During and after our struggles with these four
white nations, we have had lesser struggles with
peoples of other colours. Our successes in these
struggles have added to our self-satisfaction. Thus
far our efforts against the red, brown, and black
have not been too great for us. In America the
red man had land we needed ; we drove him out.
In New Zealand the brown man's country was one
we could thrive in ; we installed ourselves there.
In India and through the East the brown man had
rich territories ; we subdued him, we helped him
to increase in numbers, we sold him more of our
goods. The same can be said of the blacks in
various tropical regions. In Australia the black
man had lands suitable for whites, and we occupied
them. In South Africa we have done the same,
and, though the possession of the whites is hardly
as yet undisputed, we bear there as elsewhere a
mien of self-reliant superiority.
Our successes have brought us the material
benefits we see in the well-fed prosperity of our
peoples. The non-material benefits it is difficult
to estimate. So naturally do we accept both, that
the thoughtless among us assume such comfort to
be the normal lot of good people such as we are.
We are content with our present portion — the
best the world provides — and would counsel others
to be content with theirs. We think we are a
peaceful people, and deprecate as bad form the
huge expenditures made by European nations for
military and naval preparations. Some Americans
contemplate their small army as though their
nation were by that proved virtuous, much as
though the learned Babu, contemplating the fur-
136 THE PAN-ANGLES
clad Eskimo, should pride himself on his own
tropical attire. Like the sons of wealthy shop-
keepers who disdain to demean themselves by
trading, we Pan- Angles forget sometimes on what
harsh foundations was laid our present exemption
Apart from its short- visioned inconsistency, this
attitude may betray us into dangers. The English-
speaking peoples have fallen into a sense of security,
assuming the continuance of our present peace as
the normal condition of affairs. We pride our-
selves that we mind our own business with success.
And from minding it for so long, and with so slight
a chance of having it disarranged by outsiders, we
have grown accustomed to pursue without doubts
our way to greater individual freedom. We are
oblivious sometimes of the fact that all our efforts
for greater individual freedom are of no avail if
some other nation may deprive us of the where-
withal to individualize : — our land, our trade, and
our political system. " To live well a people must
first live ; and an ideal that ignores the primary
conditions of national existence is a castle in the
Since the throes of the eighteenth century, North
America has been developed and Australia and
New Zealand have prepared themselves for large
populations — all undisturbed by fear of invasions.
In these newer countries have been nurtured many
of the ideals of the race. There, have been tested
not only the federal idea, but also many political
and social reforms, such as those whose names are
associated with Australasia, but which find a con-
1 Round Table, London, June2l913,£p/485.
genial habitat in other branches of the race. In
peace we have thus been aiding each other, as we
have so often in war. And it is well for us that
this reign of peace has continued so long, not merely
because peace is to be desired, but because of the
strength it allows to accumulate for struggles to
come. That this long peace is unusual, that
struggles will come, history teaches.
Tacitus tells us of a Teuton tribe, "just and
upright." " Unmolested by their neighbors, they
enjoyed the sweets of peace, forgetting that amidst
powerful and ambitious neighbors the repose,
which you enjoy, serves only to lull you into a
calm, always pleasing, but deceitful in the end.
When the sword is drawn, and the power of the
strongest is to decide, you talk in vain of equity
and moderation : those virtues always belong to the
conqueror. Thus it happened to the Cheruscans :
they were formerly just and upright; at present
they are called fools and cowards." 1
We, unmolested by our neighbours, are now
enjoying " the sweets of peace." Is there anything
we are forgetting ? Are we backing the Pax
Britannica and the Pax Americana with sufficient
power to ensure their maintenance ? Shall we con-
tinue to be called "just and upright " ?
We still have land to which to extend our popu-
lation. Our prosperity is still undimmed. No one
is our proved superior in civilization. Recent wars
have not contributed to our military reputation,
but our faith in our naval superiority has not been
shaken and our pride of race intensifies.
1 Arthur Murphy, The Works of Cornelius Tacitus, London, 1793,
vol. iv. p. 35.
138 THE PAN-ANGLES
Yet slowly a consciousness is creeping over us
by way now of London, now of Brisbane, now of
Durban, or again of Vancouver or San Francisco,
that all is not as safe for us as it once was. Once
we could afford to squabble a bit in the family ;
now we feel we must stop such silly behaviour.
To all of us has come this feeling. It is not merely
the appearance of Germany in the North Sea or
the South Pacific, nor the desire of Asiatic Indian
coolies for entrance to the Transvaal, nor the
willingness of these and other Asiatics to share with
us the wealth of North America. These are but
signs. They forebode coming dangers whose extent
we cannot foresee.
Out of the future loom menacing forms, hardly
more tangible and comprehensible to us than were
the Teutonic hordes to the Romans. What latent
energies lie hidden in the north and east we can
only fearfully surmise. There, perhaps, are peoples
multitudinous in numbers and unmeasured in
resources. Their faiths and ideals are not ours.
To be subject to them would be no illusion.
Across the north of Europe and Asia stretches
Russia — a land of eight and one-half million square
miles, 1 larger than all the Pan- Angle area were
either Australia, Canada or the United States
omitted from the total. 2 Its population of
163,000,000 s outnumbers the Pan- Angle whites
1 Ency. Brit., vol. xxiii. p. 870 : " The Russian empire stretches
over a vast territory in E. Europe and N. Asia, with an area ex-
ceeding 8,660,000 sq. m., or one-sixth of the land surface of the
2 Cf. ante, p. 81, note 1.
3 H. P. Kennard, comp. and ed., The Russian Yearbook for
1912, London, 1912, p. 46. This is as of 1 910 census.
by 22,000,000/ Russia is self-supporting in that
within its borders are food and fuel for years to
come. In Siberia are ample coal and iron fields.
Petroleum, of such growing importance in these
days of aerial navigation, Russia has in plenty. The
growth of the Russian power has been practically
simultaneous with that of the Pan- Angles, for in
1913 was celebrated the third centenary of Romanoff
rule. What was once the small state of Muscovy
has extended its borders and pushed back its frontier,
until now it presents by far the largest stretch of
contiguous territory under one rule in the world.
It has, moreover, room for internal development.
Only the fighting edges of Siberia are filled with
settlers, most of them ex-soldiers and their
families. The interior is scantily populated against
the time when the advance of the frontier shall
The significance of this growth has not been
ignored in Europe. Statesmen have acted or have
feared to act according to their conjectures of
Russian desires and powers. For years Russia has
been, and indeed still is, the bugbear of the British
on the Indian and Persian frontiers. Urged by
the British Isles, Japan, fighting for its very
existence, checked Russia. The resulting loss to
that country was insignificant. It could receive
many such checks and still be a formidable rival.
Russia's success against Pan-Angles would mean
not only to them the material loss of lands and
food, but to the whole world the loss of some
measure of individual liberty, for the unity and
strength of that great country are founded on
1 Cf. ante, p. 81, note 1.
140 THE PAN- ANGLES
characteristics the antitheses of those which make
the Pan- Angles great.
But a danger greater than Russia has thrown its
shadow in our path. The white race once felt
assured that it was the chosen race among mankind.
It met the red, brown, and black races never to its
own ultimate disadvantage, and often, it was con-
vinced, for their good. It felt a similar destiny
toward the yellow races. It insisted that they
open their doors to the white man's trade and took
them to school in the white man's ways. Now the
white race apprehensively wonders if it has made
a mistake, if destiny is at last on the other side.
China is the wonder of history, both ancient and
modern. Civilization after civilization has battered
at its gates, taken some trifle only to lose it, and
has departed. Chinese civilization has continued
unharmed by its transient rivals. Each of these
rivals has pondered over China's strangeness, and
has failed to impress foreign ideals on its people.
The Arab, Malay, Portuguese, Dutch, French,
English, American, German, and now the Japanese
and the Russian people, have taken trifles. Of
these Macao, French Cochin- China, Hong Kong,
Shanghai, Kiaochow, Wei-Hai- Wei, Formosa, and
Tibet are modern examples. How long it will be
before these land-takings revert to the Celestial
Empire remains to be seen. "The old negative,
anti-foreign prejudice is giving way to a positive
sentiment of national ambition. With a population
— according to the last census — of over 430,000,000
of the cheapest and most industrious workers in
the world, China is bound sooner or later to
dominate the East, unless she becomes divided
against herself. And this the pressure from the
greedy competition of foreign powers seems certain
to prevent." x
To-day China is perhaps to become definitely
a republic. No one knows what China can or will
do. The white race realizes that its problem now
is no longer how to distribute among its nations
the lands of the yellow races, but how to prevent
the yellow races from distributing its lands among
themselves. Men who can endure arctic cold and
tropical heat with like fortitude and profit, may
soon become a factor in the defensive problem of
the Pan- Angles.
" The history of China, ancient and modern, is
an eternal series of paroxysms ; its keynote is
bloodshed and famine, with periods of peace and
prosperity purchased by the slaughter of countless
innocents. Its splendid civilization, based on an
unassailable moral philosophy and the canons of
the Sages, has ever proved powerless against the
inexorable laws of nature, the pitiless cruelty of the
struggle for life. . . . " 2 It seems not impossible that
the Chinese may seek to ameliorate their condition,
to lessen "the pitiless cruelty of the struggle for
life" by overflowing into the lands now held by
the Pan- Angles. By what means could we save
ourselves from being crushed before the advance
of a people our superiors in thrift and industry and
in ability to render the soil productive, and who are
three times our number ?
1 Bound Table, London, February 19H> p. 140.
2 E. Backhouse and J. O. P. Bland, "Secret Annals of the
Manchu Court," in Atlantic Monthly, Boston, December 1913,
142 THE PAN-ANGLES
Russia and China may be the active foes of our
children. We can bequeath them only such aid in
their struggle as our foresight dictates. Meanwhile
we have problems of our own demanding more
Russia and China are the rivals of to-morrow.
Japan and Germany are the rivals of to-day.
To Japan the Pan- Angles should doff their hats
as to their peers. Radically different, they are
not our inferiors. Japan has forged ahead materi-
ally at a rate that Pan- Angles have never in their
history approached. In 1853, when the American
Pan- Angle Admiral Perry forced foreign commerce
on Japan, the land was a feudal area given over
to devastating civil wars. The privileges that the
white races after 1853 exacted have been gradually
and entirely taken back. Japan now stands as
a world power. Its people are increasing rapidly.
It builds its own ships. The three fastest merchant
steamers on the Pacific to-day are Japanese. 1 No
one forgets, and it is hoped that no Pan- Angle
underestimates, the medical ability and the discipline
that backed the bravery and the patriotic spirit of
the Japanese in their life-and-death struggle against
Russia. The Japanese have taken Formosa and
Korea from China, and have held the last-named
acquisition against Russia, taking also from Russia
the southern half of Sakhalin. As Scotland,
Wales, and England have been called Great
Britain, so the Japanese have called their home
group " Dai Nippon," Great Japan.
Japan, the Dai Nippon group of islands, has a
1 Toyo Kisen Kaisha (Oriental Steamship Company) boats
Shinyo Maru, Chiyo Maru, and Tenyo Maru.
geographical area of about 150,000 square miles,
or three-quarters the size of Germany, or slightly-
greater than the area of the British Isles. Its
population of forty-nine millions is three-quarters
that of Germany, or about one-ninth more than
that of the British Isles, or five-sixths that of the
whites of the Britannic nations, or over one-third
the white population of the Pan-Angle world.
Although Formosa and Korea, and possible
portions of Manchuria, are to be considered
to-day as dependencies of Japan, the fact remains
that Great Japan as a power, despite slight
differences of dialect, contains a homogeneous
people actuated by the same spirit. The population
is now overburdening the land of Japan. Japan
must have either more land or more trade in order
to feed its people, or it must reduce its standard
of living — or lesson the population by emigration.
In Japan's search for more land, Asia offers few
inducements. 1 From Japan to the west lies
China, full to overflowing with people. From
Japan to the north and north-west lies Russia-
in-Asia under various names. Outside of Asia
the allurements increase. From Japan to the
southward lie the Philippines, now a Pan- Angle
dependency, and the islands of the East Indies, —
mostly Dutch, some German, one Portuguese,
some French, and some Pan- Angle. This network
of islands paves the route from Japan to almost
empty Australia and fertile New Zealand. To
the eastward, across the Pacific, lie the Hawaiian
Islands, the key of the Pacific, containing 80,000
Japanese, which is 45 per cent, of a population
1 Cf. Round Table, London, May 1911, pp. 263-269.
144 THE PAN-ANGLES
of which only a small per cent, are white. 1 Further
to the eastward lie Alaska, British Columbia, and
the Pacific Slope of America — all comparatively
empty. Mexico contains Japanese to await there
the tide of international events. South of the
Panama Canal is a whole continent with its many
open places. The Japanese are not a tropical
people. They want temperate, arable lands. The
best lands for Japan to annex are controlled by
Preliminary to annexation in past histories has
often gone occupation. But even if annexation
by a foreign power is not to follow the occupation
of our lands by any considerable number of aliens,
who remain aliens loyal to a foreign power, our
integrity and welfare are thereby seriously disturbed.
Several of our groups are awakening to this fact.
Alaska, British Columbia, and the Pacific Slope
states on one side of the ocean, New Zealand and
Australia on the other, and the Hawaiian Islands
between, all find the problem of Japanese migration
a live topic of practical politics. In every one of
these places legislation has been enacted to dis-
criminate against the Japanese. To both New
Zealand and Australia, the nearness of Japan
has been a stimulus toward undertaking means
of self-protection, naval and military, since these
countries have come to feel that the British navy
does not furnish adequate protection to their
exposed shores. He who looks into the conditions
of exclusion of the Japanese from these Britannic
and American shores will note the fact that the
1 Cf. Springfield (Massachusetts) Weekly Republican, June 26,
1913 ; and Britannica Year Book, London, 1913, p. 941.
action of British Columbia, California, New
Zealand, and Australia has at one time or
another been in conflict with the treaties made
by the larger political entity of which each
respectively is a part. He will see how Australia
and New Zealand have changed their legislation
to accord with the letter, but not the spirit, of
the Anglo - Japanese treaty, and how British
Columbia and California have insisted on protecting
As new areas of the Pan- Angle world are
affected by the problem, such comment as the
following appears : " A brisk controversy is going
on in the South over the proposed colonization of
Japanese in Florida. The newspapers of that state
ridicule the alarm shown by Representative Clark ;
the three or four Japanese seen in Jacksonville,
says the Times-Union of that city, appear to be
perfectly tame, and the editor concludes : 'It is
not at all probable that many Japanese will ever
wish to come to Florida, and we are willing that
all who wish to come should come.' The New
Orleans Times-Democrat is more pessimistic, and
remarks : ' That, it will be remembered, was
California's attitude not many years ago.'" 2
In the solution of this problem, which relates
not only to the Pacific but which is a problem of a
civilization, we are aided by the Pan- Angle indi-
vidualistic habit of each locality controlling its
own local questions. " ' No one,' said the Premier
of British Columbia the other day ... 'no one
1 Cf. Round Table, London, February 1911, pp. 123-153.
2 Springfield (Massachusetts) Weekly Republican, November 27,
146 THE PAN-ANGLES
can question the supreme authority of the Legis-
lature of British Columbia to deal with oriental
immigration."' 1 In cases where no one does
question such authority, the matter is promptly
settled according to the wishes of the locality
affected. If, on the other hand, any one does
question such authority, the locality has, at least,
by its insistence warned the whole race of its perils.
Each such insistence offends the Asiatics. To
those Pan- Angles concerned, it is becoming in-
creasingly understood that the struggle has only
The anti- Asiatic feeling has been expressed from
Vancouver to Hobart, and from Auckland to
Durban. Its utterance has been earnest and
measured, bitter and extravagant, loud and long.
A whole race would not in various corners of the
earth so talk and act for no reason. It would be
tedious here to catalogue the phrases ranging from
mild to execrative. Nor can the credit be given
to any special one of the Pan- Angle nations
involved for moderation of statement or care in
analysis of the problem.
Enough here to quote a statement of one 2 who
is known throughout the Pan- Angle world : " The
question discussed ... is based . . . upon the
Alien Land Bill recently passed by the California
Legislature. Upon that particular measure I have
no comment to make ; it is in fitter hands than
mine. It is to ' the ultimate issue involved,' . . .
1 Round Table, London, September 1913, p. 602.
2 A. T. Mahan, "Japan among the Nations," a letter to
the editor of The Times, in The Times Weekly Edition, London,
June 27, 1913.
that I direct my remarks. 'The ultimate issue
involved ' . . . ' is whether Japan, who has made
good her title to be treated on a footing of com-
plete equality as one of the Great Powers of the
world, is not also entitled to rank among the
civilized nations whose citizens the American
Republic is ready to welcome, subject to a few
well-defined exceptions, within its fold whenever
they are prepared to transfer their allegiance to it.'
In brief, this means, I apprehend, whether the
attainment by Japan of the position of a Great
Power entitles her to claim for her citizens free
immigration into the territories of any other Great
Power, with accompanying naturalization.
"... In my own appreciation there is no
necessary connexion between a nation's status as
a Great Power and her right to receive for her
people the privileges of immigration and naturaliza-
tion in the territory of another State ; and the
reasonings adduced in support of the proposition
seem to me defective, both in some of their asser-
tions and still more so in ignoring certain con-
"Primary among these facts is that of the
popular will, upon which, in the fundamental
conceptions of both British and American govern-
ment, the policy of a nation must rest. Be the
causes what they may — economical, industrial,
social, racial, or all four ; and if there be any other
motives — the will of the people is the law of the
Government. So far as that will has been
expressed in America and in Canada it is distinctly
contrary to the concession of such immigration.
With the question of immigration that of naturali-
148 THE PAN-ANGLES
zation is inextricably involved. There cannot be
naturalization without immigration ; while immi-
gration without concession of naturalization, though
conceivable and possible, is contrary to the genius
of American institutions, which, as a general pro-
position, do not favour inhabitancy without right
"Another tacit assumption is that changes of
governmental methods change also natural char-
acteristics, to such an extent as to affect radically
those qualities which make for beneficial citizen-
ship in a foreign country. Stated concretely, this
means that the adoption of Western methods by
Japan has in two generations so changed the
Japanese racial characteristics as to make them
readily assimilable with Europeans, so as to be
easily absorbed. This the Japanese in their just
pride of race would be the first to deny. It
ignores also the whole background of European
history, and the fact that European civilization
(which includes America) grew up for untold
centuries under influences of which Eastern Asia
— including therein Japan — experienced nothing.
The ' Foundations of the Twentieth Century,' are
not only a succession of facts, or combination of
factors. They are to be found chiefly in the
moulding of character, national and individual,
through sixty-odd generations.
" It is, I conceive, this deep impress of prolonged
common experience which constitutes the possibility
of assimilation, even among the unhappy, poverty-
stricken mass often coming to us, . . . Un-
doubtedly they constitute a problem, but one
with which the immense assimilative force of
English institutions, especially when Americanized,
has been able so far to deal successfully, and I
believe will continue able. But there are those
who greatly doubt whether, in view of the very
different foundations of the Japanese 20th century,
and of the recognized strength and tenacity of
character of the Japanese people emphasized by
strong racial marks, they could be so assimilated.
We who so think — I am one — cordially recognize
the great progresses of Japan and admire her
achievements of the past half century, both civil
and military ; but we do not perceive in them the
promise of ready adaptability to the spirit of our
own institutions which would render naturalization
expedient ; and immigration, as I have said, with
us implies naturalization. Whatever our doubts as
to the effect upon national welfare of the presence
of an unassimilable multitude of naturalized aliens,
the presence of a like number of unnaturalized
foreigners of the same type would be even worse.
" The question is fundamentally that of assimila-
tion, though it is idle to ignore that clear superficial
evidences of difference, which inevitably sautent
aux yeuoc, due to marked racial types, do exasperate
the difficulty. Personally, I entirely reject any
assumption or belief that my race is superior to the
Chinese, or to the Japanese. My own suits me
better, probably because I am used to it ; but I
wholly disclaim, as unworthy of myself and of
them, any thought of superiority. But with equal
clearness I see and avow the difficulties of assimila-
tion due to formative influences of divergent pasts
and to race. . . .
" Let me say here that ... is mistaken in the
150 THE PAN- ANGLES
statement that the United States ' within living
memory waged the greatest civil war of modern
times in order to establish the claim of American
negroes to equal right of citizenship with the white
population.' With the statement falls necessarily
his inference from it, that ' a colour bar cannot
be logically pleaded as prohibitive.' The United
States did not wage the War of Secession even for
the abolition of slavery, still less for equal rights
of citizenship. Gold win Smith, as a contemporary,
held against us that the war, not being for abolition,
was one of conquest. Lincoln said distinctly : — ' I
will restore the union with slavery or without
slavery, as best can be.' Myself a contemporary
and partaker, I can affirm this as a general tone,
though there was a strong minority of abolition
sentiment. The abolition proclamation came
18 months after the war began, and purely as a
measure of policy. The full rights of citizenship
came after the war ended, as a party political
measure, though doubtless with this mingled much
humanitarian feeling. Concerning this legislation
a very acute American thinker, himself in the war,
said to me within the past two years, * The great
mistake of the men of that day was the unconscious
assumption that the negro was a white man, with
the accident of a black skin.' That is, the question
was not one of colour, but of assimilation as involved
in race character. Now, while recognizing what
I clearly see to be the great superiority of the
Japanese, as of the white over the negro, it appears
to me reasonable that a great number of my fellow-
citizens, knowing the problem we have in the
coloured race among us, should dread the introduc-
tion of what they believe will constitute another
race problem ; and one much more difficult, because
the virile qualities of the Japanese will still more
successfully withstand assimilation, constituting a
homogeneous foreign mass, naturally acting together
irrespective of the national welfare, and so will
be a perennial cause of friction with Japan, even
more dangerous than at present. . . .
[Here follows a personal appreciation of the
Japanese as Admiral Mahan had known them for
forty years, and to which most thoughtful Pan-
Angles would gladly subscribe. He then con-
"... Despite gigantic success up to the pre-
sent in assimilative processes — due to English
institutions inherited and Americanized, and to
the prevalence among the children of our com-
munity of the common English tongue over all
other idioms — America doubts her power to
digest and assimilate the strong national and
racial characteristics which distinguish the Japanese,
which are the secret of much of their success,
and which, if I am not mistaken, would constitute
them continually a solid homogeneous body, essen-
tially and unchangingly foreign."
If there are, as Admiral Mahan suggests, good
reasons why the Japanese should not be allowed
to settle in Pan- Angle countries, those certainly
form the best of reasons why the Pan- Angles
should not allow themselves to occupy a position
where Japan could demand of them this privilege
for its subjects.
But while Japanese immigration, for the present
peaceful except in the field of economics, has been
152 THE PAN-ANGLES
agitating the nations that border the Pacific, half
way round the world other Pan- Angles have had
nightmares of a military invasion. " Within
twelve hours' steam of Essex and Lincolnshire
is the port of Emden, recently adapted for the
embarkation of large bodies of troops." 1 "The
past need not concern us here. However serious
the old scares may have been, at least they came
and went, leaving a clear sky behind them when
they had gone. But now the sky refuses to clear.
The 'scare' of 1909, launched on that March
afternoon when Sir Edward Grey told the House
of Commons that, in view of German competition,
the whole British Fleet would have to be rebuilt
in Dreadnought form, has left a permanent mark
upon the public mind." 2
There, at England's door, has been growing
a nation small in geographical area but with a
population of 65,000,000 whites, 3 which, though
less than the number of whites of the United
States, is more than the number of whites of the
six Britannic nations. Roughly stated, Germany
has about one-half as many whites as have all
the Pan- Angle nations combined. 4 In many
respects Germany's position is not unlike Japan's.
Both nations have had a victorious rise based on
military efficiency, and there is no proof that their
naval efficiency is not similarly high. Both nations
1 C. A. W. Pownall, Thomas Pownall, London, 1908, Supple-
ment, p. 51.
2 Round Table, London, September 1913, p. 675.
3 Statesman s Yearbook, London, 1913, p. 857: 19 10 population
of Germany 64,925,993, which is 310*4 per square mile.
4 Germany 65,000,000; Japan 49,000,000; America 81,000,000;
and all the seven Pan- Angle nations 141,000,000.
have, relatively speaking, but a small subject
population to control. Both nations must neces-
sarily be warlike on account of the pressure of
population about them, and both have birth-rates
which are already crowding their lands more than
the Pan- Angles are crowding theirs.
Practically all the non-European areas of the
world which the white race can occupy are held
by the seven Pan- Angle nations, or protected by
one of them, or are in the hands of their out-run
rivals, or in the control of Japan, Russia, or China.
The same is true of lands unsuited for white
occupation, but desirable as dependencies. Ger-
many arrived on the scene so recently that it
shared practically only the last divisions of the
lands of the blacks. Consequently, the only lands
available for Germany are those now held by the
white and yellow races.
Under such circumstances, if Germany is to take
land from whites, Pan- Angle common-sense sug-
gests that such land should not be ours. In ac-
cord with such policy is Sir Harry H. Johnston's
suggestion that Portugal's African dependencies
be divided between the British Isles and Ger-
many. 1 If Germany should, however, show a
preference for Pan- Angle lands and should ask
for those lands on which we now depend for our
life and comfort, common-sense equally suggests
that we be in a position to refuse. We could not
expect the Germans to starve themselves and
their children, or even to reduce their standard
of living out of respect for claims we could no
longer uphold. We did not so respect the claims
1 Cf. ante, p. 132, note 1.
154 THE PAN-ANGLES
of Portugal or Spain, Holland or France. Epi-
sodes in our own history ought to point plain the
only road to security of possession.
The rise of the German Empire might by Pan-
Angles be regarded with antagonism, if Japan,
Russia, and China offered no dangers. The old
and lasting fear that Pan- Angles have for centuries
held toward Europe was the fear that called for
the naval supremacy of the British Isles and for
the Monroe Doctrine of America. Antagonism
toward Germany might seem justified were it not
that the fear of these other three powers, so
different in civilization from us, makes Germany
our natural and civilization ally. The victory of
Germany over any portion of the Britannic world
would be a Pan- Angle calamity. The fall of
modern Germany would be hardly less of a Pan-
Angle calamity. Any thought of the whites
weakening each other, and especially of weakening
their chance for developing their individualism,
should be abhorrent to every Pan- Angle or
German who can see further than the mass of
International politenesses often verge towards
the extravagant. But certainly, if human relation-
ships can be ascribed to nations, Germany is our
near of kin. German blood has enriched ours
for fifteen hundred years. Pan- Angle ideals of
religious and political freedom came originally
from Germany. Pan- Angle language, Pan-Angle
law, and many of the qualities of which we are
most proud had the same source. Individualism
has developed more highly among the Pan-Angles
— at least in matters of government. This is
demonstrated by Pan-Angle and German ideas
regarding civil officers. " Of course, in every
nation its affairs are, and must be, conducted
by officials. That is as true of America as of
Germany. The fundamental difference is that
with us these official persons are executive officers
only, the real captain is the people ; while in
Germany these official persons are the real
governors of the people, subject to the commands
of one who repeatedly and publicly asserts that his
commission is from God and not from the people." *
Contrast with this the utterance of an American
" official " : " The people have not transferred
their government to us. They still retain owner-
ship and all the rights and powers of ownership.
We are merely their temporary agents in perform-
ing duties which they have delegated to us." 2 The
German point of view would be intolerable to a
Pan- Angle, but there is no reason for assuming
that this bureaucratic country may not develop a
truly representative form of government. 3
To prevent a conflict with Germany should be
not merely a matter of Pan- Angle sentiment, but
of Pan- Angle business. If the Pan- Angles were
so strong that Germany was no longer a source of
danger to any one of their nations, Germany would
be changed from a dangerous rival to a political
ally. It would be the buffer state for the Pan-
1 Price Collier, Germany and the Germans, New York, 1913,
2 Inaugural message of Governor David I. Walsh of Massa-
chusetts to the State Legislature, January 8, 1914.
3 Note the effort, December 1913, of the lower house of the
German Parliament to make the Chancellor responsible not to
the Emperor but to the lower -house.
156 THE PAN- ANGLES
Angles against Russia, indeed against all Europe,
providing thus greater security for itself as well
as for us. We now realize the world has already
been staked off by the white and yellow races.
While the British Isles and Germany are making
extraordinary efforts to build navies, Japan, Russia,
and China are growing unmolested. Germany
should be the nation with which all Europe and
all Pan- Angles should unite to neutralize Japanese
and other Asiatic questions that press for solution,
and the nation with which all other whites should
rally if this test of strength ever has to come.
Properly understood in reference to the economic
and political struggle between the white and
yellow races, a Pan- Angle federation should be
welcomed by every German.
The Pan- Angles are responsible for large subject
populations, which they both control and protect.
This requires a greater or less military effort accord-
ing to local circumstance and the fluctuating make-
up of the international situation. Fortunately, from
a military point of view, these Pan- Angle depen-
dencies are widely scattered over the earth, and of
such diverse languages that no combination among
them has thus far appeared probable. But in case
of any conflict with a foreign power they must
always be regarded as an element of weakness to
us. The Pan- Angles are not a military people.
In each of our recent wars we have had to make
ready an army after hostilities began — even though
we were not taken unawares. In this regard we
are at a disadvantage with those powers who keep
their military force in constant readiness. In the
past we have been willing to forego a fighting effi-
ciency, if thereby we could be free of a possibly
tyrannical system and obtain greater play for our
individualism. We may continue of this mind for
the future. But if we choose to disregard the
usual national precaution of military safety, we
must make doubly sure of other strength as its
The Pan-Angles do not occupy a contiguous
land area. They are scattered over the globe, and
are exposed not only on their many shores but
throughout the length of their lines of sea com-
munication. The oceans sever them from each
other and sever some of them from their food.
One answer to the problems which arise from this
wide separation is sea power. On this depends the
very daily existence of some of our groups.
Until recently six of our nations have relied
almost entirely upon the taxing power and efforts
of the British Isles to maintain a navy for them.
The burden on the British Isles has been heavy,
and is growing steadily heavier. To defend the
British Isles from Germany the British navy was
withdrawn to European waters. Since 1910 this
concentration has been practically a defence of the
North Sea shores of the British Isles. How long
can the British Isles alone bear the strain of its own
naval defence ? And who is to defend the other five
Britannic nations ? " We have made great efforts, as
in the past, but we are realizing that even so our
efforts, in Great Britain alone, may before long
fall short of what Imperial security requires. And
this increasing anxiety is not due solely to a narrow
158 THE PAN-ANGLES
apprehension of German aims. It is due to the
rate of naval expansion everywhere." * " It is quite
clear that external pressure is already more severe
than it has been for nearly a hundred years, and
that it will probably become even greater in the
Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have now
taken steps towards maintaining their own navies
to co-operate with the British navy, but it is still
true that, " Once the command of the sea is lost
by the [British] Empire no local system of defence,
naval or military, could secure Australia's auto-
nomy, and she would become the prey of the
strongest maritime power." 3 A like statement
could be made of the other younger Britannic
nations. And while the American navy is not to
be disregarded as a possible aid, it is not wise for
either the Britannic or American people to assume
that navies under separate governments will act
with that promptness possible under a single control.
In comparison with some of their competitors
now rising to the stage of active rivalry, all the
seven Pan- Angle nations are collectively only one
first-class world-power. Each Pan- Angle nation is
naturally more solicitous for its own welfare than
for that of its fellow nations. The Englander is
exasperated that the other Britannic nations take
so little interest in the German peril. Australia
and South Africa block the immigration of Asiatics
from British dependencies. Canada dallies over
1 Round Table, London, September 1913, p. 675.
2 Ibid., May 19H,p. 244.
3 Admiral Henderson in " Report to Australian Government,"
quoted in Round Table, London, May 1911, p. 258.
the merits or demerits of a naval appropriation bill.
The United States fortifies its Canal. Our co-op-
eration is still uncertain, for we are still divided
into seven different nations. Neither New Zealand,
nor Australia, nor Newfoundland, nor Canada, nor
South Africa, nor the British Isles, nor the United
States would care to try to stand alone against the
possible combinations that might be brought against
it ; sentiments of warmest friendship, or even trea-
ties, are a poor substitute for a machinery of
government tried and tested before the crash comes.
As they now are, the seven Pan- Angle nations
offer the maximum of inducements for inter-Pan-
Angle friction and extra-Pan-Angle aggressions.
Together the Pan- Angles could ensure the peace
of the world.
The future of the Pan- Angles must flow out of
their past. The course it will take is indicated by
our history if, following Seeley's admonition, the
investigator turns " narrative into problems." " For
in history everything depends upon turning narrative
into problems. So long as you think of history as
a mere chronological narrative, so long you are in
the old literary groove which leads to no trust-
worthy knowledge, but only to that pompous con-
ventional romancing of which all serious men are
tired. Break the drowsy spell of narrative ; ask
yourself questions ; set yourself problems ; your
mind will at once take up a new attitude ; you
will become an investigator ; you will cease to be
solemn and begin to be serious." 1
The events of Pan-Angle history reveal three
tendencies. These may be designated as : spread-
ing, separating, and converging. They are to be
noted both in the various national growths and in
the collective growth of the entire civilization.
Without discussing seriatim these three tendencies
in each one of the seven nations, or the singular
1 J. R. Seeley, The Expansion of England, London, 1883,
similarities exemplified in the histories of the United
States, Canada, Australia, and South Africa, con-
sideration is here given only to the aggregate swing
or movement in the whole civilization.
The spreading, starting with the days that saw
the discovery of Newfoundland, continued and
made the whole of North America Pan-Angle
land. If the impulse had produced nothing more
than this, its work would have been stupendous.
Yet the spreading was so effective in other parts
of the world that a large proportion of the Southern
Hemisphere also became Pan- Angle land. To-day
we control thirty per cent, of the world's land
The tendency to separate is stimulated whenever
the imperative Pan- Angle need of exercising self-
government is improperly checked. If this need is
satisfied, separation is prevented. If the need is
denied satisfaction, it grows more and more acute
to the point of rupture.
The story of separations among us began with
the failure to recognize this principle of local
autonomy, and the many interferences which
slowly exasperated the "American Englishmen"
to rebel. Thus was destroyed the first Britannic
Empire. Thus were embittered against each other
the Americans and the British of three generations.
The American Revolution, aptly called the
Imperial Civil War, started migrations. Loyalists
from the thirteen new nations took Pan-Angle
ideals into Canada. " It has been estimated,
apparently on good authority, that in the two
provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
1 Cf. ante, p. 16.
162 THE PAN-ANGLES
alone, the Loyalist emigrants and their families
amounted to not less than 35,000 persons, and the
total number of refugees cannot have been much
less than 100,000." 1 This is the principal reason
why Canada to-day is Pan-Angle rather than
French. 2 It is the reason, too, why in some parts
of Canada there is a feeling grounded on inherited
prejudice against the United States.
So little were the causes of the phenomenon of
separating understood by the rulers of the British
Isles, that Canada, in turn, came to the verge of a
revolt which " was in fact a war of nationality in
the British Empire, though it wore the disguise of
a war of liberty." 3 "The settlement of the diffi-
culty was effected by means not very commonly
in high favour. For once systematic thought was
brought to bear upon politics. ... a young peer
of considerable promise, Lord Durham, was sent
out as Governor in 1838 ; he issued a famous
report, due to the pen of Charles Buller, in which
the Radical philosophers' principles were vigorously
applied . . . and in 1840 Parliament was persuaded
to give effect to the proposals made in the report ;
. . . the main point was that the Executive branch
of government was brought under the control of the
colonists. . . . The year 184-1 is therefore the year
of the inauguration of modern Colonial govern-
ment ." 4 The year 1841, therefore, inaugurated the
1 Jones, History of New York, ii. pp. 259, 268, 500, 509, quoted
by G. F. Parkin, Imperial Federation, London, 1892, note, p. 124.
2 Cf. G. R. Parkin, Imperial Federation, London, 1892,
pp. 127, 153.
3 J. R. Seeley, The Expansion of England, London, 1883, p. 48.
4 Alfred Caldecott, English Colonization and Empire, London,
1891, pp. 131-133.
policies that were in time to check the separating
Not only was separation the desire of certain of
the younger groups, but it was to some extent the
desire and foregone conclusion of one group from
which separation might take place. The attitude
of the British public concerning those portions of
the British world where English-speaking white
men were claiming increasingly the right to govern
themselves was in itself more than an invitation to
these " colonies " to separate themselves from the
Mother Country. Comparison was made to a tree
whose ripened fruit in due season detaches itself
from the parent stem. The loss of the richest area
in whose conquest the British government ever
shared had so impressed statesmen that such men
as Gladstone could desire the separation from the
British Isles of various Pan- Angle nations.
" During the years which preceded the repeal of
the Corn Laws in 1846 there was in this country
[British Isles] a general indifference to the colonial
question which did not cease till long afterwards. . . .
After the Cobden era came that of Mr. Gladstone,
who was in his zenith in the sixties and as purely
insular and deficient in the power of Imperial
thought as Cobden had been in the forties." 1 "A
governor, leaving to take charge of an Australian
colony, was told even from the Colonial Office that
he would probably be the last representative of the
Crown sent out from Britain. This tendency of
official thought found its culmination when, in
1866, a great journal frankly warned Canada, the
1 C. A. W. Pownall, Thomas Pownall, London, 1908, Supple-
ment, pp. 9, 10.
164 THE PAN-ANGLES
greatest of all the colonies, that it was time to
prepare for the separation from the mother-land
that must needs come." 1 "Mr. Goldwin Smith
... in his . . . Canada and the Canadian Ques-
tion, which may fairly be supposed to condense
all that can be said in favor of the separation of
Canada from the Empire, and generally in support
of that form of national disintegration which is
involved in the great colonies becoming separate
states or annexing themselves to other nations . . .
is almost the last conspicuous representative of a
school of thinkers which twenty-five or thirty years
ago appeared likely to dominate English opinion
on colonial affairs." 2 Only slowly were learned
the lessons of the American Revolution, which a
British historian in 1883 could truthfully say,
" We have tacitly agreed to mention as seldom as
we can." 3
The tendency to separation is latent in every
Pan- Angle community. It is only when local and
central authority are properly balanced that it is
quieted. In one it has never been quieted. The
story of Ireland it is unnecessary and inexpedient
here to narrate. 4 An Englander calls it "the
greatest and most lamentable failure of the Pax
Britannica." 5 It is merely the proof, again and
again repeated, of the inability of Pan- Angles
1 G. R. Parkin, Imperial Federation, London, 1 892, p. 8.
2 Ibid., p. 163.
8 J. R. Seeley, The Expansion of England, London, 1883, p. 22.
4 For a general account of Ireland in this connection, see
Price Collier, England and the English, London, 191 1, pp. 230-262;
and for a constitutional discussion, cf. Round Table, London,
December 1913, pp. 1-67.
5 H. S. Perris, Pax Britannica, London, 1913, p. 139-
successfully to control the local affairs of other
Pan- Angles. There is something in us, in our
individualism, that forbids such success, and calls
for separation, which leads to rebellion if opposed,
or revolution if permitted.
The Irish for generations have been leaving
Ireland. They leave embittered against England.
That bitterness they spread broadcast in the six
younger Pan- Angle nations. Everywhere in these
six nations the Irish find home rule. 1 The bitter-
ness against government, as government, wears off.
The Irishman becomes a citizen of a new and
proud nation — he becomes a self-conscious Pan-
Angle. But the Irish Question is no nearer
solution than before.
Contemporaneous with the separation sentiments
among the Britannic peoples were the agitations
in the United States that were to culminate in the
secession movement. The dread of a strong
central government had left in the southern
portion of America a belief in state separateness
that worked against the existence of a common
government which, within the scope of its authority,
could make decisions binding on all its component
lands and people. From the end of the French-
Pan- Angle struggle to the beginning of the
American Civil War, the century of 1763-1861,
the course of separation ran almost unchecked.
As this separation tendency strengthened, the
unity of the race and that of one of its component
nations were exposed to disintegration. The out-
1 As Home Rule, like other political terms, has been used to
denote many theorems, its meaning in any statement depends
somewhat on the particular instance.
166 THE PAN-ANGLES
come appeared to forebode the end of Pan- Angle
world control. A house divided against itself
cannot stand. If this family was to split into
national factions of increasingly smaller size, its
end was apparent. Some other civilization would
absorb the scattered bits of the once powerful race
and another chapter of the struggles of successive
civilizations would be concluded.
Certain American states, desiring to loosen the
tie by which they were bound, seceded from the
Union. Other states declared their faith in the
federal principle and took their stand against
separation. The issue was befogged in many
minds by other points of contention. But "the
question submitted to the arbitrament of war was
the right of secession." 1 Those who looked on
could see that if success attended the secession
movement, Pan- Angles would have to begin again
their search for the means of preserving the balance
between local and central government. "My
paramount object is to save the Union and not
either to save or destroy slavery," wrote Lincoln
in 1862. 2
Wilson characterizes the three great men of that
struggle in terms of the question at stake. Of
Lincoln he says : " The whole country is summed
up in him : the rude Western strength, tempered
with shrewdness and a broad and humane wit ; the
Eastern conservatism, regardful of law and devoted
to fixed standards of duty. He even understood
1 W. H. Taft, Popular Government, New Haven, Connecticut,
1913, p. 137.
2 Ency. Brit., vol. xxiii. p. 178, Letter of Abraham Lincoln to
Horace Greeley, August J 862.
the South, as no other Northern man of his genera-
tion did. He respected, because he comprehended,
though he could not hold, its view of the Constitu-
tion ; he appreciated the inexorable compulsions of
its past in respect of slavery ; he would have secured
it once more, and speedily if possible, in its right
to self-government when the fight was fought
out. . . .
" Grant was Lincoln's suitable instrument, . . .
A Western man, he had no thought of common-
wealths politically separate, and was instinctively
for the Union ; a man of the common people, he
deemed himself always an instrument, never a
master, and did his work, though ruthlessly,
without malice; a sturdy, hard-willed, taciturn
man, a sort of Lincoln the Silent in thought and
On the opposite side Robert E. Lee fought " for
a principle which is in a sense scarcely less American
than the principle of Union. He represented the
idea of the inherent — the essential — separateness
of self-government. . . . Lee did not believe in
secession, but he did believe in the local rootage of
all government. This is at the bottom, no doubt,
an English idea; but it has had a characteristic
American development. It is the reverse side
of the shield which bears upon its obverse the
devices of the Union, 1 . . . Lee . . . could not
conceive of the nation apart from the State : above
1 Cf. W. H. Taft, Popular Government, New Haven, Connecticut,
1913, p. 151 : " It is essential ... in the life of our dual govern-
ment that the power and functions of the State governments
be maintained in all the fulness that they were intended to
have by the framers of the Constitution."
168 THE PAN-ANGLES
all, he could not live in the nation divorced from
his neighbors. His own community should decide
his political destiny and duty." 1
The outcome of the American Civil War, to
those in the Pan- Angle world who were looking
forward to an end of separatings — and this included
many in the British Isles, — gave hope and inspira-
tion. It demonstrated the reality of American
nationhood and, more important still, it encouraged
the race on its path towards convergence. It made
natural the Canadian Constitution, otherwise known
as the British North America Act of 1867. It
made reasonable the foundation in London of the
Royal Colonial Institute in 1868, whose motto is
"United Empire." 2 It made comprehensible the
theses of such books as Dilke's Greater Britain,
1868, and Seeley's Expansion of England, 1883. 3
Later were to come the convergences of the Austra-
lian states in 1900 and the South African provinces
in 1909. "For the idea of national unity the
people of the United States twenty-five years ago
made sacrifices of life and money without a parallel
in modern history. No one now doubts that the
end justified the enormous expenditure of national
force. ' The Union must be preserved ' was the
pregnant sentence into which Lincoln condensed
the national duty of the moment, and to maintain
this principle he was able to concentrate the national
energy for a supreme effort. The strong man who
1 Woodrow Wilson, Mere Literature, Boston, 1900, pp. 208-210.
2 United Empire is also the title of the magazine published
monthly by the Royal Colonial Institute, London.
3 C. W. Dilke, Greater Britain, London, 1868; J. R. Seeley,
The Expansion of England, London, 1883.
saved the great republic from disruption takes his
place, without a question, among the benefactors
of mankind." 1
Moreover, the outcome of the American Civil
War tended to revise the attitudes of the British
Isles and America toward each other. Up to this
time, their attention had been fixed on the con-
ditions of their separation. Hostility seized on
various acts performed or permitted by the British
government which, rightly or wrongly, the American
people considered acts of unfriendliness. These, as
the Americans realized, they were hardly in a posi-
tion to resent while the Civil War was in progress,
although at one time war was very nearly declared
against the British Isles. 2 When the Civil War
was over, retaliation might have been undertaken.
The American government had at its disposal a
navy of over seven hundred vessels, of which over
seventy were ironclads. It had an army of over
one million seasoned men. The opportunity sug-
gested itself as a proper time to pay off American
grudges against the British Isles by annexing
Canada. This would have been holding Canada
blamable for the doings of another nation. To
the credit of the Pan -Angles, President Grant
successfully opposed the scheme. 3 Not only did
the decade 1860-1870 mark the rise of the con-
verging movement in the United States and in
Canada, but the same decade saw the culmination
and abatement of separating tendencies between
1 G. R. Parkin, Imperial Federation, London, 1892, p. 25.
2 According to H. C. Lodge — One Hundred Years of Peace,
New York, 1913, p. 108 — September 3, 186S, was the crucial day.
3 Ibid., pp. 118-119-
170 THE PAN-ANGLES
the two great powers of the Pan- Angle group, the
British Isles and America.
Since those days Pan- Angles have made progress
in understanding the balance necessary between
the separating and the converging impulses. Men
have erred by emphasizing too strongly one side
or the other. In America they cried out blindly
for " centralization," or " states rights " — in ignor-
ance that only by the complementary strengths of
both central and local governments can our sort of
people be governed in great masses. Among the
Britannic peoples men favoured either British Isles
ascendency, or colonial independence — ignorant
that the first would as quickly destroy them as
would the second. Either course would produce the
independence of the younger nations and, through
lack of strength to maintain that independence, the
loss of it, possibly to some nation outside the Pan-
Angle group. These American and Britannic
extremists are now a diminishing minority.
The growth of the idea of complementary
functions in co-ordinate (not superior and inferior)
governments has been instanced by many develop-
ments in America. There was a time, many now
alive can remember the days, when "centralization"
and " states rights " were championed by opposing
political parties. To-day it is recognized that the
successful government of America rests on the
proper use of both of these extremes. This is true,
whether it refers to national versus state authorities,
or state versus municipal authorities. With a
strong central authority in America goes to-day
greater recognition of the need of a concurrent
local control. This local spirit has gone so far in
some of the American states that state legislatures
have authorized cities to draw up their own
charters. 1 Moreover, American political experience
within the states has adhered in many cases to the
theorem that, on such questions as local taxation
and the sale of liquor, the smaller subdivisions of
the state should decide their own usages.
Once it was assumed that the officers of the
federal government in America should enlarge as
much as possible their spheres of activity, even if
they appeared to encroach upon state functions.
It is now realized that the states should be
encouraged to attend to their own affairs, and thus
avoid increasing the burdens of the federal govern-
ment. President Roosevelt in 1908 unofficially
called together the American state governors to
discuss " conservation," and since then yearly these
state executives have met to discuss questions of
state policy. These conferences not only tend to
produce greater uniformity of Pan- Angle political
action, but tend also to make that action the
product of large experience. This Conference of
the Governors 2 and other non-official bodies, the
1 Cf. Ency. Brit., vol. xxvii. p. 651.
2 The Outlook, New York, December 21, 1912, p. 843 : "The
first Governors' Conference was called by President Roosevelt in
1.908. It met at the White House to consider the subject of
Conservation. So immediately evident was the desirability of
co-operation that Governor Willson, of Kentucky, sprang to his
feet at the close of one of the sessions and said, ' Gentlemen, let
me detain you a moment.' He went to the platform and there
unfolded a plan for a Conference of the Governors, to be called
by themselves. This was held at Washington in 1909. The
third meeting of the Governors occurred at Frankfort, Kentucky,
Governor Willson's own capital, in 19 11, . . . The Governors'
172 THE PAN-ANGLES
American Bar Association among them, are now
encouraged by public opinion to remedy, in what-
ever ways seem wise, undesirable discrepancies in
the laws of the various states, not by seeking
greater authority in the central government, but
by agitating in the states themselves.
The extent of our progress is shown strikingly
by the change in Pan-Angle sentiment between
the wars of 1861-1865 and 1899-1902. In South
Africa the race was spared any repetition of the
humiliating political corruption of the "carpet-bag"
era of the American "reconstruction." 1 We have
learned that whether it is in the United States or
South Africa, in Canada 2 or in Ireland, white men
must be made into self-governing Pan-Angles.
Rhodes recognized this when he said even while
the war was in progress, "... you cannot govern
South Africa by trampling on the Dutch." 3 The
impulses toward local autonomy and those toward
a common group unity must be correlated. To
favour either at the expense of the other is to
The spreading of the Pan- Angles is still going
on, though in the multiplicity of affairs arising in
Conference is apparently becoming something of a fixture in
our political life."
1 Ency. Brit., vol. xxv. pp. 480-481 : Peace signed at Pretoria,
May 31, 1902; self-government decreed, December 12, lp06;
elections held in Transvaal, February 1907.
2 Cf. Alfred Caldecott, English Colonization and Empire, London,
1891, p. 130 : a Canada was a conquered possession, not a settle-
ment, it is true ; but the attempt to treat it as a conquest nearly
ended in another catastrophe."
3 W. T. Stead, The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John
Rhodes, London, 1902, p. 113.
the places we already occupy we often overlook
the pioneer work of the present. The causes for
separating have been understood and extensively
removed. The converging tendency is now in the
ascendant. The political evolution that accom-
panies this convergence, though it seems slow to
the impatient reformer, may, if understood and
assisted by those who shape popular opinion, give
Pan- Angles in the fulness of time an entity
This converging tendency of the race, Americans
have seen with satisfaction in their own land. As
far as they have been conversant with it, they have
approved of it in Britannic lands. A Canadian
wrote in 1892 : " Among thinking native Americans
I have found, as a rule, a genuine sympathy with
the advocates of unity for British people, a sym-
pathy perfectly natural in a nation which has
suffered and sacrificed so much as the people of
the United States have for a similar object." 1
Since our knowledge of each other has grown in
twenty odd years this might to-day be expressed
even more strongly. Moreover, " English people,"
the same writer testifies, "now understand and
respect the motives which actuated the resolute
and successful struggle of the people of the United
States against disruption." 2
There is to-day a great drawing together of the
whole Pan- Angle race. The desires of Franklin
and his supporters are nearing realization. The
1 G. R. Parkin, Imperial Federation, London, 1892, p. 253.
2 Ibid., p. 254.
174 THE PAN-ANGLES
errors which led to our separations have passed
into the race experience. We can all profit by
them. We have all profited by them. The
tendency to convergence was never wholly in-
operative. It survived the wrench of the American
Revolution. Lord Shelburne, in conducting the
British side of the peace negotiations of 1783, held
to the ideal of restoring Pan- Angle unity, and
thereafter worked for it in Parliament, hoping " that
this would have been the beginning of the great
Anglo-Saxon federation of which Chatham had
dreamed ; . . , W1
The power of this impulse drawing us together
is evidenced in the peace that has endured among
us. The century closing December 24, 1914,
stands as witness. Within our whole civilization,
this period has chronicled only two wars of white
men on Pan- Angle soil— 1861-1865 and 1899-
1902. These were devastating and deeply to be
regretted. They remind us that peace is not to be
taken for granted. Between the two entirely in-
dependent sections of the Pan-Angles, and these
are at the same time the most populous, no conflict
of interests has been allowed to develop into war.
Differences of opinion have arisen, as was inevitable.
They have been settled through the exercise of
forbearance, self-control, and concession, without
recourse to arms.
Needless to try to apportion the credit between
the two nations. Canadians have sometimes felt
1 Round Table, London, December 1913, p. 112. As to
Chatham's plans for both Irish and American co-operation in
Pan- Angle government, see A. L. Burt, Imperial Architects,
Oxford, 1913, pp. 28-32.
that their interests were being sacrificed on the
altar of British- American friendship. " Those who
study the history of the questions which have arisen
from time to time since the Peace of 1813 between
this country [British Isles] and the United States,
can hardly fail to be struck by a difference in the
habitual attitude of the two Powers. Great
Britain has always been pliable as to such ques-
tions ; having indeed every motive, both of senti-
ment and of interest, for being and remaining on
the best terms possible with the United States." 1
Another Britannic critic not only denies that the
British negotiators have been pliable, but claims
that as envoys on Canada- America disputes they
have been of a cleverness at least equal to that of
the Americans. 2
Whoever may have appreciated it more keenly,
the fact is now evident that the community of
interests which embraces all Pan-Angles is an affair
of transcending importance. Our great men have
understood this and given it repeated expression.
Mr. Joseph Chamberlain said at Toronto in 1897 :
" But I should think our patriotism was dwarfed and
stunted indeed if it did not embrace the Greater
Britain beyond the seas ; if it did not include the
young and vigorous nations carrying throughout the
globe the knowledge of the English tongue and the
English love of liberty and law; and, gentlemen, with
1 Roundell Palmer, Earl of Selborne, Memorials : Part II.,
Personal and Political, London, 1 898, vol. i. p. 202.
2 Round Table, London, December 1913, pp. 106-122. This
article should amuse all Pan- Angles by its fraternal frankness
in describing the diplomacy of both British and American actors
in these dramas. It also throws light on the usages of so-called
176 THE PAN-ANGLES
those feelings I refuse to think or speak of the United
States of America as a foreign nation. We are all
of the same race and blood. I refuse to make any
distinction between the interests of Englishmen in
England, in Canada, and in the United States." 1
An Australian in 1912 wrote: "British interests
in India or the East Indies would not be attacked
if there were a large Australian fleet. The problems
of defence in Canada, South Africa, Egypt, and
United States [sic] would be distinctly easier with
such a fleet." 2 Note that he makes no distinction
which sets the United States aside from other Pan-
Angles. Lord Bryce — and no American is more
highly esteemed in the United States than he, — 3
speaking in London in 1913, said : " Returning
hither from America, I have two things to say to
the British Pilgrims gathered here as friends of the
American people. One is that you must not take too
seriously the lurid pictures of American life drawn in
some organs of the European press. In Washington
I used to be struck by the dark view which the press
news from England conveyed of British events and
conditions, a view which I knew to be misleading.
Here the same thing happens. Cable messages and
1 Mr. Chamberlain at Toronto, December 30, 1 897, quoted by
M. Victor Berard, British Imperialism and Commercial Supremacy,
trans. H. W. Foskett, London, 1906, p. 200.
2 Round Table, London, September 1912, p. 722.
3 At a farewell dinner given to Mr. Bryce in New York City,
former American Ambassador to the British Isles Joseph H.
Choate turned to the guest of honour and stated : " England
has sent, will send, many Ambassadors, but there's only one
Bryce in the whole list. The American people from the Atlantic
to the Pacific love and honour you, sir." See The Outlook, New
York, May 10, 1913, p. 80.
the vivid pens of correspondents inevitably heighten
the colour. My other message is to assure you
that the friendship you entertain for the people of
the United States is reciprocated by them far more
universally and heartily than ever before. There
is a friendship of governments and a friendship of
nations. The former may shift with the shifting
of material interests or be affected by the relations
of each power with other powers. But the latter
rests on solid and permanent foundations. With
our two peoples it is based on a community of
speech, of literature, of institutions, of beliefs, of
traditions from the past, of ideals for the future.
In all these things the British and American peoples
are closer than any two other peoples can be.
Nature and history have meant them to be friends." 1
Against this spirit of amity not a dissenting voice
is raised. We rejoice in the peace of the years
behind us and in the good feeling of the era at
hand. We seek some means to perpetuate them.
Political good feeling in its different degrees
takes, according to Pan-Angle experience, three
forms. These so merge, that it is difficult at times
to define in terms of them. They may be known
for purpose of study as : friendship, alliance, and
The relations between England and its American
colonies started in the friendship stage. Later de-
veloped a co-operation that can be fairly called
1 Mr. Bryce before the Pilgrims Club in London, November 6,
1913, quoted by Springjield (Massachusetts) Weekly Republican,
November 7, 1913.
178 THE PAN-ANGLES
alliance. In the French-Pan-Angle struggle for
North America, the colonies contributed men and
money, as did Great Britain. Together they won
much of the territory now the United States and
all that is now Canada. Together they did more
than this. " The Seven Years War made England
what she is. It crippled the commerce of her rival,
ruined France in two continents, and blighted her
as a colonial power. It gave England the control
of the seas and the mastery of North America and
India, made her the first of commercial nations,
and prepared that vast colonial system that has
planted new Englands in every part of the globe." 1
Pownall, during his term as governor, saw Massa-
chusetts raise at the requisition of the Crown not
the 2300 men asked for, but 7000. 2 " Owners of
property were paying in taxes two-thirds of their
incomes." 3 Yet their legislature in 1759 voted
funds for a monument to Lord Howe, who had
fallen the previous summer at Ticonderoga. It
stands in Westminster Abbey 4 to-day, a memorial
as well of the men whose " affection to the mother
country . . . zeal for the service," Pownall knew
from experience. 5 Speaking in the British House
of Commons, of which he was a member 1768-1780,
1 Francis Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, London, 1884, vol. i.
2 C. A. W. Pownall, Thomas Pownall, London, 1908, p. 157.
3 Ibid., p. 95. This is as of 1758.
4 Cf. ibid., p. 125. The monument is in the Belfry Tower,
the north aisle of nave. Cf. Baedeker's London, 1911, p. 217.
It was Lord Howe's brother, Sir William Howe, who on March
17, 1776, evacuated Boston to abandon the city to these same
American Englishmen — now rebels.
5 C. A. W. Pownall, Thomas Pownall, London, 1908, p. 157.
he describes their attitude during the Seven Years
War. In case of a French invasion of England at
that time, he testifies : " Those New England men
would have been ready to come over at their own
expense to the assistance of their native country —
as they always hold England to be." 1
After the pressure of war was removed, the
alliance, instead of being carried to the stage of
common government, was neglected. Friendship
and co-operation became things of the past, and
separation took place. Many then thought that
this might have been avoided. Governor Pownall,
for one, knew that there was " a certain good temper
and right spirit which, if observed on both sides,
might bring these matters of dispute to such a
settlement as political truth and liberty are best
established upon." 2 The " certain good temper"
did not then prevail. To-day, in 1914, we see the
advantage of acting in the " right spirit " which
may bring all our affairs to such a settlement as is
conducive to the welfare of all Pan- Angles.
The United States in itself shows, perhaps most
completely, the detailed history of the political
growth of groups of Pan- Angles through the three
stages. The defensive alliance of the American
colonies fell apart after the successful outcome of
the French War. The friendship between the
thirteen nations survived, and common necessity
with a common cause 3 produced the alliance
1 C. A. W. Pownall, Thomas Pownall, London, 1908, p. 232.
2 Ibid., p. 202.
3 Woodrow Wilson, The State, 1897, rev. ed., Boston, 1911,
p. 4>53: " Despite very considerable outward differences of
social condition and many apparent divergencies of interest as
180 THE PAN-ANGLES
which made successful the American Revolution.
Thereafter came the critical period of American
history. 1 The first attempt at common govern-
ment in 1781 took the form of a strengthened
alliance and failed, because alliance was at this
juncture inadequate. Undaunted, the Americans
framed another constitution for the potential
nation. Here at last was a common government.
It has survived so long that to-day the United
States is the oldest republic in the world. It has
endured the strain of both foreign and civil wars.
It has permitted the assimilation of vast hordes of
white people, who now cherish this government as
their own. This government expresses the will of
eighty-one millions of whites — a majority of the
English-speaking people of the world. 2
Of the six Britannic nations, Canada, Australia,
and South Africa have travelled through friendship
and alliance to common government. Canada,
apparently divided by two languages, was the first
thus to establish its nationhood. Australia was the
second. More recently still, South Africa, in spite
of a diversity of tongues, achieved the same result. 3
between colony and colony, they one and all wanted the same
revolution. . . . They did not so much make a common cause as
have a common cause from the first."
1 See John Fiske, The Critical Period of American History,
1783-1789, Boston, 1898.
2 Cf. ante, p. 81, note 1.
3 P. A. Molteno's A Federal South Africa, London, 1896,
written more than three years before the Boer War, compares the
then condition of South Africa with the condition of the American
thirteen nations in the days covered by Fiske's The Critical Period
of American History, contains a prophecy now fulfilled, and is a
valuable comment on many of the needs of the Pan- Angle world
There are those who maintain that the six
Britannic nations have not yet arrived at the
alliance stage. " Everything hangs on sentiment,
influence, and management." 1 Some recommend
that an alliance should be definitely entered into. 2
Yet while it is true that the five younger Britannic
entities are "nations, with a life, a pride, a con-
sciousness of their own, with separate, divergent,
and in some cases indeed conflicting interests," 3
it seems also true that a friendly alliance does
exist among them and between them and the
It is an alliance de facto if not de jure, its terms
being unwritten, unstated, and unknown. In the
Colonial Conference of 1902, "To Sir Wilfrid
Laurier's famous challenge, ' If you want our aid,
call us to your councils,' the Colonial Secretary
[Chamberlain] made an emphatic response.
1 Gentlemen, we do want your aid. We do want
your assistance in the administration of the vast
Empire which is yours as well as ours. The weary
Titan staggers under the too vast orb of his fate.
We have borne the burden for many years. We
think it time that our children should assist us to
support it, and whenever you make the request
to us, be very sure that we shall hasten gladly to
call you to our councils.'" 4 In the South African
1 F. S. Oliver, Alexander Hamilton : An Essay on American
Union, London, 1906, p. 447.
2 Richard Jebb, The Britannic Question, London, 1913.
3 Lord Milner, December 14, 1906, at Conservative Club,
Manchester, England, in Lord Milner, The Nation and the Empire,
London, 1913, p. 142.
4 Richard Jebb, Studies in Colonial Nationalism, London, 1905,
182 THE PAN- ANGLES
War, and more recently in their efforts in behalf
of greater naval strength, the six nations behaved
as allies affording inspiring examples of what they
can and may again do. Certainly the political good
feeling between the Britannic nations cannot be
said to have progressed further than to the alliance
stage, since " any political arrangement in which
powers are withheld, or granted upon terms, or are
subject to revision at the will of any member of
the confederacy, is not a real union, but only an
Between the United States and the British Isles
are treaties that bind them into an extraordinarily
close alliance — treaties which are the strongest
written expressions of international goodwill. 2 On
the even closer " understanding " between the two
nations, so that they are found acting in concert in
every part of the globe, it is unnecessary to dwell.
But between the United States and the younger
Britannic nations, what is the relation ? They are
undoubtedly friendly, but where is the formal
evidence of such friendliness ? The five younger
nations can hardly be considered partners to the
alliance between the United States and the British
Isles, as in making this alliance these five had no
share. To form an alliance between the United
States and the Britannic power, inclusive of the six
Britannic nations, is now impossible, because such
1 F. S. Oliver, Alexander Hamilton : An Essay on American
Union, London, 1906, p. 452.
2 For a history of the General Arbitration Treaty of 1911
between America and the British Isles and its full text as
proposed and as ratified, see H. S. Perris, Pax Britannica, London,
1913, pp. 285-293, 301-307.
a Britannic political entity able to ratify treaties is
non-existent. Postulating an alliance among all
the Britannic nations, the United States through
its alliance with the British Isles may perhaps be
considered as allied to the allies of its ally. As we
are now organized, this is as far as we have been
able to progress. It is just beyond the friendship
The seven Pan- Angle nations are to-day bound
together by friendship and, in some cases, alliance.
They are united by sentiment only, whether it be
unwritten or written. At this stage many of our
groups have found themselves in the past. It has
held for them two possibilities. Sentiment was
the bond between Pan- Angles after the French
War which ended in 1763. The bond failed to
hold and separation followed. Sentiment in alliance
form was tried in the Articles of Confederation
in 1781. It failed ; and on its ruins was built a
common government. It is of no moment that
sentiment in the first case was unwritten, and in
the second case, written. Sentiment is not govern-
ment. Need other cases of failure be mentioned ?
It is for us to determine whether, when our present
relationships change, they give way to separation
and weakness, or develop by convergence into the
strength of a common government. The motto of
our youngest nation points out the hope of our
future, " Ex unitate vires."
A COMMON GOVERNMENT
Who, first of all, dreamed of closer union between
England (or Great Britain) and its colonies we
do not know. As early as 1652 there came from
Barbados a suggestion. It was in no way followed
up. Colonel Thomas Modyford " desires, although
it may seem immodest, that two representatives
should be chosen by the island to sit and vote in
the English parliament." 1
In the following century Benjamin Franklin
devised a scheme of union and laboured to com-
mend it to the makers of Pan- Angle history. In
June 1754 he attended a conference of eleven
of the colonies met at Albany to consider defence
against the Indians. That matter disposed of,
Franklin submitted a plan for the union of the
1 A. L. Burt, Imperial Architects, Oxford, 1913, p. 14; cf.
pp. 14-1 6: "In all likelihood it was but a chance suggestion
without any serious purpose behind it, for, in his subsequent
career as Governor, though he erected an assembly which was
not ratified by the King, he did not, as far as can be ascertained,
once recur to this idea.
" It is doubtful when, or by whom, in the eighteenth century,
the first suggestion of American representatives in the British
Parliament was made. Though Franklin was perhaps not the
first, yet his proposal is the earliest extant."
A COMMON GOVERNMENT 185
colonies. 1 Later in the year he wrote as follows to
Shirley, Royal Governor of Massachusetts : " Since
the conversation your Excellency was pleased to
honor me with, on the subject of uniting the
colonies more intimately with Great Britain, by
allowing them representatives in Parliament, I
have something further considered that matter,
and am of opinion that such a union would be
very acceptable to the colonies, provided they had
a reasonable number of representatives allowed
them ; . . .
" I should hope, too, that by such a union the
people of Great Britain and the people of the
colonies would learn to consider themselves as not
belonging to different communities with different
interests, but to one community with one interest ;
which I imagine would contribute to strengthen
the whole, and greatly lessen the danger of future
separations. . . .
" Now, I look on the colonies as so many coun-
tries gained to Great Britain, and more advantage-
ous to it than if they had been gained out of the
seas around its coasts and joined to its lands ; . . .
and since they are all included in the British empire,
which has only extended itself by their means, and
the strength and wealth of the parts are the strength
and wealth of the whole, what imports it to the
general state whether a merchant, a smith, or a
hatter grows rich in Old or New England ? . . .
And if there be any difference, those who have
most contributed to enlarge Britain's empire and
commerce, increase her strength, her wealth, and
1 John Bigelow, The Complete Works of Benjamin Franklin,
New York, 1887, vol. ii. pp. 343-375, gives the plan in full.
186 THE PAN-ANGLES
the numbers of her people, at the risk of their own
lives and private fortunes in new and strange
countries, methinks ought rather to expect some
The Albany scheme failed of adoption. The
race was not ripe for Franklin's foresight. 2 Years
afterwards he wrote : " The different and contrary-
reasons of dislike to my plan make me suspect
that it was really the true medium ; and I am
still of opinion that it would have been happy
for both sides if it had been adopted. The
Colonies so united would have been sufficiently
strong to have defended themselves. There would
then have been no need of troops from England.
Of course, the consequent pretext for taxing
America and the bloody contest it occasioned
would have been avoided. But such mistakes
are not new ; history is full of the errors of
states and princes. Those who govern, having
much business on their hands, do not generally
like to take the trouble of considering and carrying
into execution new projects. The best public
measures are therefore seldom adopted from
previous wisdom but forced by the occasion." 3
1 John Bigelow, The Complete Works of Benjamin Franklin, New
York, 1887 : " Letter of Franklin to Shirley, December 22, 1754/'
vol. ii. p. 384.
2 Ency. Brit., vol. i. p. 832 : " In him [Franklin] was the focus
of the federating impulses of the time. . . . He was, first of
men, broadly interested in all the colonies, and in his mind the
future began to be comprehended in its true perspective and
scale ; and for these reasons to him properly belongs the title of
'the first American.' "
3 H. E. Egerton, Federations and Unions within the British
Empire, Oxford, 1911, p. 16.
A COMMON GOVERNMENT 187
But Franklin's idea did not die. Thomas
Pownall, just out from England, a man later
appointed Downing Street's Governor of Massa-
chusetts, attended the Albany Colonial Conference.
He heard the deliberations and talked with the
commissioners and, as he himself wrote later,
then "first conceived the idea and saw the
necessity of a general British union." 1 The
acquaintance he made there with Franklin grew
into closest friendship. Both men wrote in favour
of colonial representation ; 2 and present in many
ways an adequate epitome of the best thought of
each branch of their civilization.
Pownall recognized that the race would outgrow
its London capital. In 1766 he wrote that repre-
sentatives of the colonies, if apportioned according
to population, would in time outnumber those of
Great Britain, and " the centre of power instead of
remaining fixed as it is now in Great Britain will,
as the magnitude and interest of the colonies
increases, be drawn out from these islands by the
same laws of nature, analogous in all cases, by
which the centre of gravity, now near the face of
the sun, would, by an increase of the quantity of
1 C. A. W. Pownall, Thomas Pownall, London, 1908, pp. 50-51.
2 Ibid., p. 204, and ante, p. 186, note 1. One of Franklin's
cleverest hoaxes was, "An Edict of the King of Prussia," 1773,
proclaiming that the island of Britain was a colony of Prussia,
having been settled by Angles and Saxons, having been
protected by Prussia, having been defended by Prussia against
France in the war just passed, and never having been definitely
freed from Prussia's rule ; and that, therefore, Great Britain
should now submit to certain taxes laid by Prussia — the taxes
being identical with those laid upon American colonies by Great
Britain. Cf. Ency. Brit., vol. xi. p. 26.
188 THE PAN-ANGLES
matter in the planets, be drawn out beyond that
surface." 1 This result, he thought, might be
guarded against by stipulating that the colonial
members were always to come to England. 2 A
present-day Englander makes no such stipulation.
Lord Milner in Johannesburg in 1904 stated :
" I am an Imperialist out-and-out — and by an
Imperialist I don't mean that which is commonly
supposed to be indicated by the word. It is not
the domination of Great Britain over the other
parts of the Empire that is in my mind when I
call myself an Imperialist out-and-out. I am an
Englishman, but I am an Imperialist more than
an Englishman, and I am prepared to see the
Federal Council of the Empire sitting in Ottawa,
in Sydney, in South Africa — sitting anywhere
within the Empire — if in the great future we can
only all hold together." 3
About another objection Pownall consulted
Franklin. " He had been told that if the colonists
were to pay the same taxes as people in England
and, like them, to send members to Parliament,
equal powers of trade must be conceded. When
that was done the Atlantic commerce might after-
wards centre in New York or Boston, and power
be transferred there from England. ' Which con-
sequence, however it may suit a citizen of the
world, must be folly and madness to a Briton.'
1 Thomas Pownall, The Administration of the Colonies, 3rd ed.
(1766), quoted by C. A. W. Pownall, Thomas Pownall, London,
1908, p. 187.
2 C. A. W. Pownall, Thomas Pownall, London, 1908, p. 187.
3 Lord Milner, May 28, 1904, at Navy League Meeting,
Johannesburg, in Lord Milner, The Nation and the Empire,
London, 1913, p. 67.
A COMMON GOVERNMENT 189
So exclaimed the Englishman who wrote to his
colonial friend for a solution of the difficulty.
The American-born Franklin took quite another
view. He saw no difficulty at all; he replied
that the fallacy lay in supposing that gain to a
British Colony was loss to Britain. He main-
tained that the whole Empire gained if any part
of it developed a particular trade, and he pre-
dicted that without a complete union, by which
full and equal rights were given, the existing
system of government could not long be retained.
Assuming Pownall's premises to be correct he
inquired, * which is best — to have a total separation
or a change of the seat of government ? '" 1
Soon it was too late to answer Franklin's ques-
tion. A separation took place, and two supreme
governments divided the responsibility of safe-
guarding the English-speaking whites. As time
passed, each portion of the Pan- Angles founded
colonies. The American colonies were held to
the American " home " states by means of a federal
government. The British Isles colonies have, in
some instances, federated among themselves, so
that to-day the Britannic power consists of six
nations. And now all seven nations are appreci-
ating how superficial are these political separations.
To-day we have seven central seats of government,
and after a century of peace, a new question arises
— whether we should re-form our relations.
One hundred and twenty-three years after
Franklin and Pownall so discussed the migration of
the seat of government of the English-speaking
1 C. A. W. Pownall, Thomas Pownall, London, 1908, pp. 199-
190 THE PAN-ANGLES
peoples, another Colonial and another Englander
corresponded on the same subject. Cecil John
Rhodes wrote to William T. Stead : " What an
awful thought it is that if we had not lost America,
or if even now we could arrange with the present
members of the United States Assembly and our
House of Commons, the peace of the world is
secured for all eternity ! We could hold your
federal parliament five years at Washington and
five at London." 1 Stead has recorded a conversa-
tion of the same year in which Rhodes " expressed
his readiness to adopt the course from which he
had at first recoiled — viz. that of securing the unity
of the English-speaking race by consenting to the
absorption of the British Empire in the American
Union if it could not be secured in any other way.
In his first dream he clung passionately to the
idea of British ascendancy — this was in 1877 — in
the English-speaking union of which he then
thought John Bull was to be the predominant
partner. But in 1891, abandoning in no whit his
devotion to his own country, he expressed his
deliberate conviction that English-speaking re-
union was so great an end in itself as to justify
even the sacrifice of the monarchical features and
isolated existence of the British Empire . . . and
from that moment the ideal of English-speaking
reunion assumed its natural and final place as the
centre of his political aspirations." 2
As Franklin and Pownall foresaw, the race
1 W. T. Stead, The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John
Rhodes, London, 1902, p. 73 : "Letter of Cecil J. Rhodes dated
August 19 and September 3, 1891, to William T. Stead."
2 Ibid., p. 102.
A COMMON GOVERNMENT 191
centre moved out of England. Emerson in 1856
realized that in America " is the seat and centre of
the British race," * a statement strengthened since
by the growth of Canada. North America is now
the centre of Pan- Angle civilization, and Canada
is the key of the Britannic world.
The impulse to closer union has never been long
quiescent. It has been active again and again
in the minds of men. A century after Franklin
presented his Albany plan for the race, Joseph
Howe " looked upon the attainment of complete
independence of local government in the colonies
as but a stepping-stone to the assertion of still
higher national rights, to the acceptance of still
higher responsibilities ; to some form of substantial
union among British people, based on considera-
tions of equal citizenship and the defence of common
interests. As far back as 1854 he delivered in the
Nova Scotia Legislature an address, since published
. . . under the name of the ' Organization of the
Empire ' which . . . embodies most of what has
since been said by the advocates of national unity.
Twelve years later, when on a visit to England,
he published in pamphlet form an essay bearing
the same title, and giving his more fully matured
views upon the question. If the genesis and
enunciation of the Imperial Federation idea in its
modern form is to be credited to any one, it must
be assigned to Joseph Howe for this early and
comprehensive statement of the main issues in-
volved. The study of the utterances of this great
colonist, this champion of colonial rights, may be
1 R. W. Emerson, English Traits, 1856, Boston reprint, 1894,
192 THE PAN-ANGLES
commended to those shallow critics who profess to
believe that the proposal for national unity is an
outcome of Imperial selfishness, and that its opera-
tion would tend to cramp colonial development." l
Franklin and Pownall wrote in the days when
the race knew only the English method of integra-
tion — "absorptive, incorporative." 2 The various
American colonies had been experimenting in
effecting combinations on another principle, but
their successes had hardly yet proved that the
same principle in extended form could be applied to
the desired union between all the governments of
the English-speaking race. In 1787 was drawn up
the Constitution of the United States of America,
and the federal method of integration was put
definitely to trial. In 1801 Ireland was united
to Great Britain, but not by federation. Irish
members were admitted to the Parliament of the
United Kingdom much after the manner in which
Franklin had suggested that American members
should be admitted. In the century or more since
has been proved the value of federation which
means neither confederation 3 of groups bound by
treaties whereby no adequate affirmative policy or
common government would be possible, nor absorp-
tion whereby local self-government would be
obscured or blotted out, but an expedient com-
bining both local freedom and central strength.
The South African Colonial writing to the
1 G. R. Parkin, Imperial Federation, London, 1892, pp. 71-72.
2 Woodrow Wilson, The State, 1898, Boston, rev. ed., 1911,
p. 454. 3 Ibid., p. 565.
A COMMON GOVERNMENT 193
Englander who shared his vision takes for granted
a " federal parliament."
The forms Pan-Angle governments take are
now two. One is the simple unitary form in which
the central government is supreme within the
sanction of the will of the voters expressed at the
polls, any other government being a subordinate,
i.e. a municipal government. The other form is
not unitary, and the central government is supreme
in the exercise of certain authority only, other
governments being in all else supreme and auto-
The states of America, for example, and those of
Australia are unitary in government. Of the seven
Pan-Angle nations, three, Newfoundland, New
Zealand, and the British Isles, are unitary, the
central government in each being supreme over
every part and in every respect.
Of the non-unitary governments there are four :
the United States, Canada, Australia, and South
Africa. By an accident of time and place America
was the first to grapple with the problems which
called for such a government. Thirteen states
independent of each other and of any outside
power found themselves in danger from inter-state
contentions and external aggressions. Building
for their very lives, they devised a form of govern-
ment which has been called federal. In it each
state kept most of its sovereign powers, but
delegated certain others of them to a central
legislature. The federation of the six Australian
states followed much the same lines. In Canada
and South Africa the states (in both cases called
provinces) have retained less of their local auto-
194 THE PAN-ANGLES
nomy. The central government in the former
may with some legislative difficulty and delay
assume any power it desires, while in the latter
unrestricted power has been lodged from the
beginning in the central government. In neither
of these two nations, however, has the central
government assumed the exercise of its full possible
power. In both it co-exists at present with the
provincial governments after a federal manner,
obtaining thus the advantages of federation.
For comparatively restricted areas within which
problems and opinions are tolerably uniform, a
unitary government satisfies Pan- Angles. States
and provinces are such areas. Newfoundland and
New Zealand are at present such areas. In New-
foundland the population is very sparse and the
local variations are slight. It will be many years
probably before there arises a need and a desire for
devolution * of power from the present legislature.
In New Zealand conditions are not so uniform, and
although a unitary government seems satisfactory
to-day, the time may readily be imagined when
a denser population and conflicting interests of
different sections of the country may make feasible
local legislatures, each, for its allotted tasks,
supreme. The only attempt so far towards that
end originated outside of New Zealand and was
abandoned before being put into practice. 2
1 When a federation is built from component parts, certain
powers are delegated by the parts to the central government.
When a federation is made by dividing a unitary government,
certain powers are devoluted by the existing government to the
2 P. A. Silburn, Governance of Empire, London, 1910, p. 210.
A COMMON GOVERNMENT 195
The unitary method of government has never
proved itself able successfully to integrate areas
divided from each other by distance or interests.
It failed to hold together the first Britannic growth ;
it has been unable to bring into unity the second
Britannic growth ; it is acknowledged to be in-
adequate for such a task. Its weaknesses are
evident in the British Isles. The British Isles,
although no larger than many states and provinces,
is composed of several sections divided by history,
prejudice, and interest. These are now united into
one government, in which one central legislature is
supreme. Questions which may affect some one
section alone are decided by the representatives of the
country at large who are possibly both uninterested
and uninformed. Scottish education, Welsh Church,
and Irish land bills are dependent on the will of the
whole British Isles, 1 and a multitude of strictly local
affairs must wait for the attention of Parliament,
since no other body has power to deal with them.
The results of this condition are two : first, a
congestion of business in Parliament incompatible
1 Woodrow Wilson, The State, 1898, Boston, rev. ed., 1911,
p. 473, points out that of the twelve greatest subjects of legisla-
lation occupying the attention of the British Parliament during
the last century — Catholic emancipation, parliamentary reform,
the abolition of slavery, the amendment of the poor laws, the
reform of municipal corporations, the repeal of the corn laws, the
admission of the Jews to Parliament, the disestablishment of the
Irish Church, the alteration of the Irish land laws, the establish-
ment of national education, the introduction of the ballot, and
the reform of the criminal law — only two (corn laws and slavery)
would in America have been subjects for central (federal)
government regulation. Prior to the American Civil War only
one of these two, the former, would have been a subject for
central (federal) government regulation.
190 THE PAN-ANGLES
with efficient and intelligent action ; and, second,
the violation of the principles of self-government
producing discord between the several sections of
the country. No one questions that Parliament
to-day labours under the terrible disadvantage of
having more to do than it possibly can accomplish.
Needed and uncontended legislation is delayed for
years, and such bills as are passed receive often
inadequate consideration. 1 Though unity has up
to now been preserved, the lack of local self-
government has produced discords always more
or less active. At times these have threatened to
break out into violent disruption.
To overcome these weaknesses — to relieve the
burdens of Parliament and to check the tendency
to separation — many thinkers and patriots in the
British Isles are convinced that some devolution of
power to local legislatures cannot be long delayed. 2
There is talk of Irish, Scottish, and Welsh home
rule. The present control of British Isles affairs
by the Irish members of the House of Commons is
teaching the desirability of home rule for England.
Some would re-form the country into still smaller
governmental sections. In the operation of any
such plan a central Parliament is to be in control
of certain nation - wide interests, among which
would be foreign affairs and the army and navy.
1 For a detailed account of the difficulties of the British Isles
Parliament in this connection, cf. An Analysis of the System of
Government throughout the British Empire, London, 1912, Introduc-
tion, pp. xii-li.
2 Cf "Pacificus," Federalism and Home Rule, London, 1910;
also Arthur Ponsonby, u The Future Government of the United
Kingdom," in Contemporary Review, London, November 1913.
A COMMON GOVERNMENT 197
" Now, what the Federalist is anxious to set up
in the United Kingdom is an arrangement upon
the Canadian model, in which there will be a
supreme and sovereign Parliament, as at present,
for the United Kingdom, and under it a certain
number of subordinate parliaments, to attend to
local and domestic legislation and administration.
. . . No Federalist has ever suggested that Ireland
should be turned into a Canada, although this
accusation has occasionally been made against
him by persons who have read his proposals
carelessly, and have, accordingly, misunderstood
their nature." 1
A British Cabinet Minister, speaking in Dundee
on October 9, 1913, stated : " I am perhaps at an
unfortunate age for making a prophecy. I am
ceasing to belong to the young men who dream
dreams, and I have not yet joined the ranks of
the old men who see visions ; still I will run the
risk of prophecy and tell you that the day will
most certainly come — many of you will live to see
it — when a federal system will be established in
these Islands which will give Wales and Scotland
the control within proper limits of their own
Welsh and Scottish affairs, which will free the
Imperial Parliament from the great congestion of
business by which it is now pressed, and which
will redound and conduce to the contentment and
well-being of all our people." 2
When some such re-formation of government is
adopted by the British Isles, it will only be utiliz-
1 " Pacificus/' Federalism and Home Rule, London, 1910,
2 The Times, London, October 10, 1913.
198 THE PAN-ANGLES
ing the fruits of the race's experience in other
parts of our civilization.
If the first steps to this " home rule all round "
aimed at in the present (1914) legislation regarding
Ireland prove defective, in that it concedes what
is not needed, and denies what is needed, it is
because the British Isles has not taken to heart
the inwardness of the federal idea. Lord Dunraven
pointed this out when he said that " there were only
two principles on which Home Rule could be
founded — the Federal system or absolute indepen-
dence. The present Bill applied to neither and he
could recognize in it no basis of settlement." 1
In the following resolution, he indicated how
the question of " home rule all round " should be
attacked : " . . . ' The best means of arriving at
a settlement by consent of the Irish political
question and of the constitutional difficulties
connected with it, and of securing the harmonious
.working of any system of self-government in
Ireland and the permanency of friendly relations
between the two islands is to be found in a con-
vention, or conference, representative of all
nationalities and parties in the United Kingdom,
and ... it is the duty of his Majesty's Govern-
ment to take the initiative in inviting such con-
vention or conference.'" 2 But the fact that a
majority of the British Parliament has gone so
far as to advocate any form of Home Rule is
evidence of a sincere effort to meet the conditions
of Pan- Angle individualism where longest sup-
1 The Times, London, March 3, 1913. Account of meeting
of delegates of All for Ireland League, Cork, March 1, 1913.
A COMMON GOVERNMENT 199
pressed, and thus hasten the harmonious self-
government of the British Isles.
Franklin, when he wrote to Shirley 1 in 1754
about the need of colonial representation to the
British Parliament in London, may or may not
have realized how far the gaining of that desire
would fail to satisfy. His plan would not have
produced a federal government for Pan- Angles.
It would have created a larger unitary govern-
ment than then existed. There would not have
been co-ordinated spheres of governmental control.
The local affairs of Pennsylvania and England, of
Scotland and New York, would together have been
in the hands of a Parliament composed of repre-
sentatives elected from the nation at large. This
would have been unacceptable to the people of
England, Pennsylvania, Scotland, and New York.
They would have asked for something more. A
lesson can be drawn from this by those who to-day
urge Australian or Canadian representation in the
present British Isles Parliament. Such represen-
tation would subject Britishers to outside control
of their local problems, just as to-day Englanders
are affected by Irish representatives voting on
local problems of England. Conversely, it would
mean a continued interference in Australian and
Canadian local problems by the local representa-
tives of the British Isles — the very thing the
peoples of the five new nations have already taken
appropriate steps to obviate. The Irish question
demonstrates that representation alone is not
enough for Pan- Angles. The Irish are more than
1 John Bigelow, The Complete Works of Benjamin Franklin,
New York, 1887, vol. ii. pp. 376-387.
200 THE PAN-ANGLES
fairly represented in Parliament. Still they clamour
for more. That something more desired by all
Pan- Angles is local autonomy.
To representation in a central legislature must
be added the local control of local questions so
dear to Pan- Angle individualism. This is what
federalism accomplishes. 1 " Our Federal system
is the only form of popular government that
would be possible in a country like ours, with
an enormous territory and 100,000,000 popula-
tion. ... But for this safety valve by which
people of one State can have such State govern-
ment as they choose, we would never be able to
keep the union of all the people so harmonious
as we now have." 2 " The growth of the United
States has widened political horizons. It has
proved that immense territorial extent is not
incompatible, under modern conditions, with that
representative system of popular government which
had its birth and development in England, and its
most notable adaptation in America. It has shown
that the spread of a nation over vast areas, includ-
ing widely-separated states with diverse interests,
need not prevent it from becoming strongly bound
together in a political organism which combines
1 As federation is used in these pages for combinations of
self-governing groups, no allusion is here made to any plans for
uniting dependencies for administrative purposes such as that
contained in C. S. Salmon's The Caribbean Confederation, London,
1888, or in the established grouping of dependent areas now
styled "Federated Malay States" — concerning which latter, see
Frank Swettenham, British Malaya, London, 1907. Such bear
no comparison with self-governing federations.
2 W. H. Taft, Popular Government, New Haven, Connecticut,
1913, p. 145.
A COMMON GOVERNMENT 201
the advantages of national greatness and unity of
purpose with jealously guarded freedom of local
The indefinite governmental relationships be-
tween the Britannic nations are to-day satis-
factory to no one. Britannic closer union forms
the thesis of much writing and speech making
and the subject of much earnest study. 2 That
the demands of the situation can be met ade-
quately only by federation seems evident to many.
This thought is thus expressed by Milner : "If,
as I fervently hope, the present loose association
of the self-governing states of the Empire grows
in time into a regular partnership, it can only be,
as it seems to me, by the development of a new
organ of government representative of them all,
and dealing exclusively with matters of common
interest. Jt would only heighten confusion to
bring representatives of the Dominions into the
House of Commons. And if, as I think everyone
would admit, it is impracticable to bring them into
the House of Commons, they would certainly say,
* Thank you for nothing ' if we were to offer them
a few seats in the House of Lords." 3
Mr. Winston Churchill continued in his speech
at Dundee : " I tell you further that that system
when erected and established will in itself be only
the forerunner and nucleus of a general scheme of
Imperial federation which will gather together in
1 G. R. Parkin, Imperial Federation, London, 1892, p. 33.
2 As an example, cf. Alexander Hamilton : An Essay on Ameri-
can Union, by F. S. Oliver, London, 1 906.
3 Lord Milner, April 28, 1910, at Compatriots' Club, London,
in Lord Milner, The Nation and the Empire, London, 1913, p. 454.
202 THE PAN-ANGLES
one indissoluble circle the British people here and
beyond the seas." 1 Rhodes wrote over twenty
years ago : " I will frankly add that my interest in
the Irish question has been heightened by the fact
that in it I see the possibility of the commencement
of changes which will eventually mould and weld
together all parts of the British Empire.
" The English are a conservative people, and like
to move slowly, and, as it were, experimentally.
At present there can be no doubt that the time of
Parliament is overcrowded with the discussion of
trivial and local affairs. Imperial matters have to
stand their chance of a hearing alongside of railway
and tram bills. Evidently it must be a function
of modern legislation to delegate an enormous
number of questions which now occupy the time
of Parliament, . . .
" But side by side with the tendency of decen-
tralisation for local affairs, there is growing up a
feeling for the necessity of greater union in Im-
perial matters. . . ." 2
Not alone the federation of the Britannic nations,
but the federation of the whole Pan- Angle people,
1 The Times, London, October 10, 1913. Cf. ante, p. 197.
2 Letter of Rhodes to Parnell, June 19, 1888, quoted in
W. T. Stead, The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes,
London, 1902, pp. 122-124. On p. 120, Stead states as to
Rhodes' contribution to the Irish party : " The contract between
the African and the Irishman was strictly limited to the conver-
sion of Home Rule from a disruptive to a federative measure.
It had no relation directly or indirectly to any of Mr Rhodes'
Irish- African schemes. The whole story is told at length by
' Vindex ' in an appendix to The Political Life and Speeches of Mr.
Cecil Rhodes, from which I quote these letters."
A COMMON GOVERNMENT 203
is the end to be sought. Behind Rhodes' " greater
union in Imperial matters " lay his vision of a
common government over all English-speaking
people. 1 If we are to preserve our civilization and
its benefits to our individual citizens, we must
avoid frictions among ourselves and take a united
stand before the world. Only a common govern-
ment will ensure this.
The four federations have been the results of
similar practical impulses. The separate states and
provinces realized their mutual need of co-operation
to avoid conflict among themselves and to with-
stand enemies, actual or possible, from without.
In some cases one, in some cases the other, of
these arguments was most pressing at the time of
federation. American states were vexed by many
custom houses and were endangered by European
civilization and the savagery of the American
Indians. Canada was split by two languages and
feared the waxing strength of America. The
Australian and South African internal contentions
arising over customs and railway rivalries were
overshadowed by ominous additions to German
holdings in the South Pacific and in East and
West Africa respectively. Similar reasons are
adduced to-day in favour of the federation of the
six Britannic nations.
The union of the " United Collonyes of New
England " in 1643 appears inadequate and impotent
in the light of our subsequent "closer unions."
But it was the first voluntary common government
instituted by separate governments of English-
1 W. T. Stead, The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John
Rhodes, London, 1902, p. 102, pp. 51-77 and other pages.
204 THE PAN-ANGLES
speaking people. 1 The reasons for this co-opera-
tion are stated in terms worthy the attention and
study of present-day Pan- Angles: "... and
whereas in our settling (by a wise providence of
God) we are further dispersed upon the sea-coasts
and rivers then was at first intended, so thatt wee
cannott (according to our desire) with conveniencie
communicate in one government and jurisdiction ;
and whereas we live incompassed with people of
severall nations and strange languages which here-
after may prove injurious to us and our posterity :
and forasmuch as the natives have formerly com-
mitted sundry insolencies and outrages upon
severall plantations of the English and have of late
combined against us and seeing, by reason of the
sad distractions in England, which they have heard
of, and by which they know we are hindered both
from thatt humble way of seeking advice, and
reaping those comfortable frutes of protection,
1 P. A. Silburn, The Governance of Empire, London, 1910,
p. 191 : "Haifa century before the union of England and Scot-
land was brought about, a union of British colonies had been
successfully achieved. It was in May 1643 that a convention of
colonial representatives confederated the British colonies of
Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven as the
1 United Colonies of New England.' The negotiations leading
up to this confederation had taken six years, but when once the
union was effected its advantages were felt immediately. At
this time England, engaged elsewhere, had neither the time nor
the inclination to interfere with her American colonies. The
newly-formed confederation enjoyed almost complete liberty.
A year after the union we find this confederation negotiating
treaties with the French and projecting defences against the
Dutch. But this, the first union of colonies in the Empire, was
not a legislative one, it was simply an agreement of ( offence and
defence, advice and assistance.' "
A COMMON GOVERNMENT 205
which att other times we might well expect, we
therefore doe conceive itt our bounden dutye
without delay to enter into a present consociation
amongst ourselves for mutuall help and strength in
all our future concernments, thatt ... we bee
and continue one, according to the tennure and
true meaning of the ensueing articles." 1
Federation was evolved by our race. Though
its use was only dimly understood in the years
that followed 1643, its powers are now known to
us. It has proved the means of welding many of
our once jealous and discordant units into con-
centrated and self-protective powers. Applied to
all our nations, federation would produce that
co-operation necessary for the survival of our
civilization, yielding both the freedom we demand
and the strength that is indispensable — that Pan-
Angle paradox of flexity and firmness.
1 H. E. Egerton, Federations and Unions within the British
Empire, Oxford, 191 1, p. 103, "Articles of Confoederation betwixt
the Plantations under the Government of the Massachusetts, the
Plantations under the Government of New Plymouth, the
Plantations under the Government of Conecticutt, and the
Government of Newhaven, with the Plantations in combination
WORKING FOR FEDERATION
To maintain the individual liberty of its citizens
from alien interference is the task before each of
the seven Pan- Angle nations. Whether a closer
union of the six units of the Britannic power is
sufficient insurance of the safety of each, and
whether the United States standing alone has
sufficient margin of safety, are at least debatable
questions. Some foreign power arguing in the
negative might win. But that a closer union of
the entire self-governing English-speaking race
would be strong enough to protect each of its
component nations is here assumed to be not a
debatable question. It is here postulated that
upwards of one hundred and forty- one million
English-speaking whites are strong enough to hold
their own against the forces of the world for con-
siderable time to come. The problem resolves
itself into a struggle for the supremacy, and finally
for the survival, of the Pan- Angle civilization.
We can federate. All our past history teaches
The Britannic nations and America all contain
an individualistic form of patriotism that lends
itself to Pan-Angle federation. Just as the
WORKING FOR FEDERATION 207
American Pan - Angle gives allegiance to the
ideals behind the dull earth he calls his home, be
it city, town, township or parish ; so he gives a
larger allegiance to his state ; and a still more
comprehensive loyalty to his nation of forty-eight
states. Just as the Britannic Pan-Angle holds
in affection his throbbing factory city, or sheep-
trimmed shire, or township lush with ripening
wheat ; so he holds in greater affection " That
blessed plot, that earth, that realm, that England,"
or " that " New South Wales, or " that " Saskatche-
wan ; and in still greater affection the British Isles,
or Australia, or Canada. Among the Britannic
Pan- Angles is now growing a further patriotism
for the ideal of a Britannic whole of which each of
the six nations would be a part. Throughout the
Pan- Angle world let us add to these patriotisms
for our dreamed-of Britannic whole and for our
United States a still larger patriotism for our
English - speaking civilization, our Pan - Angle
Patriotism cannot attach itself to treaties or
alliances, " The very nature of an arbitration board
is negative." 1 Nor can it profess "loyalty ,; to a
nation not its own. A Massachusetts man cannot
be loyal to New York State, nor a Victorian to
New South Wales, nor an Englander to Scotland.
Nor can an American be loyal to New Zealand,
an Australian to South Africa, nor a Britisher to
Canada. But a Massachusetts man can be loyal
to America, a Victorian to Australia, and an
Englander to the British Isles. And all three of
these men, when their nations are part of the
1 A. L. Burt, Imperial Architects , Oxford, 1913, p. 86.
208 THE PAN-ANGLES
federation of the English-speaking people, can be
loyal Pan- Angles.
Expressive of multiple patriotisms fly a multi-
plicity of flags. Into battle alongside of the Stars
and Stripes go the American state flags. They
know no jealousy of the national banner. Its
thirteen stripes stand for the thirteen independent
nations that originally federated ; its stars, now in-
creased to forty-eight, stand each for a state now
bound into the Union. It is not forgotten how the
men of the flag of the Maple Leaf and those of the
Four-starred and Five-starred Southern Crosses
fought in South Africa alongside the men under
the Union Jack. There is as yet no Britannic flag.
The Union Jack is the British flag. It is not, as
often called, " the English flag " ; it never has
been. It was formed of crosses, the emblems of
three nations now united into one nation, the
British Isles. As the Union Jack and the Stars
and Stripes were made, so we can make a Pan-
Angle flag which every English-speaking man will
instinctively salute. Such a flag will subtract no
glory from the cherished symbols of our local
prides. Loyalty to our common race in no way
forbids loyalty to our present local groups. All
these our flags, our loyalties, our groups, are to
protect and to be protected by all Pan-Angles.
Federation can be accomplished by either of two
procedures : the combination of the seven Pan-
Angle nations directly, as seven independent units ;
or the combination of the United States and a
Britannic Federation, after this latter has been
formed. Arguments for Britannic federation are
arguments for Pan-Angle federation. The man
WORKING FOR FEDERATION 209
who has persuaded himself of the soundness of the
former will be in a position to appreciate the sound-
ness of the latter. These pages are intended to
set forth the necessity and inevitableness of Pan-
Angle federation, by whichever method attained,
and as such are in thorough accord with all efforts
towards Britannic federation. Either course is
possible, if delay does not furnish opportunities for
our separate destruction in the meantime by some
All over the Britannic world are men working
for "closer union." "The wisest and most far-
seeing Imperialists have steadily maintained that
the ultimate end of the whole movement is Federa-
tion." 1 They are working now with only the six
Britannic nations as their acknowledged field.
Organized and unorganized, they are seeking
patiently and intelligently for the safety of their
respective nations, which they know is bound up
in the safety of the whole people. They know the
political ideals of their race. They know that
though the unrepresented maybe spasmodically will-
ing to waive their rights in times of great common
danger, they none the less believe that " taxation
without representation is tyranny." These men
know also that money gifts by any Pan- Angle
nation to a navy controlled by another Pan -Angle
nation is contrary to the political instincts of all
involved. They know that " mutual funk," though
it may hold their nations together for a time, is no
safeguard against the future. They are working to
create a political entity, able by the determination of
its representatives to swing the whole of its strength
1 A. L. Burt, Imperial Architects, Oxford, 1913, p. 125.
210 THE PAN-ANGLES
at once against any foe. These men have under-
taken to persuade the Britannic Pan-Angle nations
to put aside local prejudices and to support the
whole of which each is a part.
Plans for Britannic " closer union " range from a
scheme for Britannic representation in the British
Parliament at London, such as Franklin advocated
before the race had evolved federalism, through
schemes for an alliance of the six nations with a
capital outside the British Isles * to a plan for
definite federation, including a new Britannic
Parliament to be constituted of the representatives
from each of the six nations. 2
Being now in the stage of vague alliance, it may
be that the Britannic Pan-Angles must accomplish
definitely the alliance stage as a step on the road
to federation. If so, those who favour a Britannic
alliance 3 have the wisdom of the race on their side.
But the same wisdom prophesies that the negative
advantages of alliance will have to be changed later
to the affirmative strength of a common govern-
ment. Federation has been " the great ideal of the
nineteenth century," 4 and apparently continues to
1 Richard J ebb, Colonial Nationalism, London, 1905, p, 336:
"The imperial city shall lose her pride of place. In another
seagirt isle, by the margin of the Pacific . . . sleeps a fair city."
According to Mrs. Henshaw, F.R.G.S., in United Empire, London,
January 1914, p. 80, Vancouver Island was named by Sir Francis
Drake, 1579, New Albion.
2 A resume of projects for Britannic federation is given in
A. L. Burt, Imperial Architects, Oxford, 1913, pp. 152-195; the
necessity of, and possible transitional stages on the way towards,
federation are discussed, ibid., pp. 1 96-225.
3 Richard Jebb, Studies in Colonial Nationalism, London, 1905 ;
and The Britannic Question, London, 1913.
4 A. L. Burt, Imperial Architects, Oxford, 1913, p. 147.
WORKING FOR FEDERATION 211
gain advocates. Britannic " present ' imperial
architects ' are building more carefully and labori-
ously than did their predecessors." 1
The greater part of the work for federation,
either Britannic or Pan- Angle, has already been
done for us. The explorer, the trader, the mission-
ary, and the soldier have won for us the eminence
from which we are now able to survey the world
and form our plans. The statesmen who in our
many legislative halls have laboured to fit forms of
government to the needs of the governed have
tested for us the material for our building and have
discarded what was ill-suited to our purposes. The
millions of individuals who have held true to their
Pan-Angle ideals have bequeathed them to us for
inspiration. It is for us to continue the work
begun three centuries and more ago.
What remains to be done is to follow the path
of our previous successes and avoid a repetition of
our failures. These failures each nation can find
often in the events of its own history without turn-
ing to the histories of other Pan- Angles ; and these
successes each nation can find in the histories of
others, quite as well as in that of its own. Such
seeking will make for a becoming modesty towards
each other, and by it we shall lose nothing. We
are not dealing in this matter with our inferiors or
our betters. We are dealing with each other, to
whom we cannot give, and with whom we cannot
curry, favour. Conciliation among us is not less
1 Ibid., Introduction by H. E. Egerton, p. vi.
212 THE PAN-ANGLES
necessary than compromise ; without conciliation
in the past we should not have framed successful
constitutions. To-day, as in the folk-moots of our
political ancestors, — " No man dictates to the
assembly : he may persuade, but cannot command." 1
There is no room for hypocrisy among free whites
who talk English. In our dealings with each other
neither force nor intrigue should have place. Our
history shows that if we adhere to these ideals we
can succeed in co-operation.
We must avoid interfering with each other.
Interference even when actuated by the best of
motives leads, as Pan- Angles have repeatedly ex-
perienced, to disastrous frictions and ruptures.
This knowledge we have repeatedly bought at
great cost. So well has the lesson been learned,
that even in cases where interference is constitutional
and where circumstances seem to justify it, a Pan-
Angle government first tries persuasion. The
United States Federal Government may consider
a Californian alien land act contrary to a United
States treaty ; the British Parliament may consider
the Ulster agitation serious enough to justify
coercion : both know that conciliation and persua-
sion are the safe and permanent means to employ
to right whatever the wrong may be. Interference
augments stubbornness; persuasion hastens co-
More than this, interference leads to failure. In
1849, the British Privy Council drafted a bill for
the federation of the Australian colonies. It was
not made by those for whose use it was intended.
1 Arthur Murphy, The Works of Cornelius Tacitus, London,
1793, vol. iv. p. 17.
WORKING FOR FEDERATION 213
Its clauses did "not show any close grip of the
subject, or sign that their authors realized how they
could be worked in practice." 1 Nothing came of
the plan. The only purpose it served was to
illustrate the futility of one Pan- Angle nation
acting for another. In 1819-1820 began the
Britannic immigrant occupation of South Africa. 2
In 1875 the British Isles government suggested
that the various colonies in South Africa should be
combined. 8 Viewed in the knowledge of to-day
it almost appears such a step would have been
advisable. The best intentions must be imputed
to the outside government. Had this action been
advocated by the South Africans, some kind of
joint government might have resulted. Since it
was not, the plan was merely a source of increased
hard feeling between colonists of Dutch and British
descent, and is to be included with other instances
of British interference which were the major causes
of the long and bitter Great Boer War. Each of
these nations, Australia and South Africa, when it
was ready and in its own way, produced for itself
a plan of common government. A Britisher in the
highest administrative office in South Africa wrote
in 1907 : " It is a modern axiom of British policy
that any attempt to manage the domestic affairs of
a white population by a continuous exercise of the
direct authority of the Imperial Parliament, in
which the people concerned are not represented, is,
save under very special circumstances, a certain
1 H. E. Egerton, Federations and Unions within the British
Empire, Oxford, 191 1, p. 183.
2 W. B. Worsfold, The Union oj South Africa, London, 1912,
p. 104. 3 Ency. Brit., vol. xxv. p. 475.
214 THE PAN-ANGLES
path to failure." 1 American experience goes still
further. There, every community is represented in
every government having legislative jurisdiction
over it. Yet it has been proved advisable to leave
certain spheres of legislation solely to the wishes
of the community affected.
For many years the British Isles has been the
Pan- Angle nation which, from its position, was
most tempted to interfere with the affairs of the
others. The lessons its failures set forth may be
taken to heart by the younger nations as they
grow in strength. Neither America, nor Canada,
nor Australia, nor South Africa, nor New Zealand,
nor Newfoundland can at any time in their future
afford to make the mistake of trying to compel
one of the six other nations. An advantage of
numbers, or position, or wealth, may lie at some
time with any one of them. On that one, then, will
rest the obligation of keeping its hands off the
others. Particularly does this apply to that one
of us whose very existence is due to its revolt
against interference, but hardly less to those others
of us whose more peaceful origins were made
possible by an already won revolution.
Federation should be attained through familiar
governmental forms, not through innovations.
Burke knew his civilization's aversion to change
which " alters the substance of the objects them-
selves, and gets rid of all their essential good as
well as of all the accidental evil annexed to them,"
1 A Review of the Present Mutual Relations of the British South
African Colonies, to which is appended a Memorandum on South
African Railway Unification, " Printed by Authority " [Johannes-
burg, 1907], p. 5.
WORKING FOR FEDERATION 215
whose results " cannot certainly be known before-
hand." He knew his civilization's belief in reform
— " a direct application of a remedy to the grievance
complained of. So far as that is removed, all is
sure. It stops there ; and if it fails, the substance
which underwent the operation, at the very worst,
is but where it was." 1 In this re-form, the essence
of our civilization — our language, our individualism,
our standards of living based on land plenty — should
be left unchanged. The new growth, federation,
will "remedy the grievance complained of" — the
danger of the extinction of our civilization.
Pending federation, the Pan-Angle nations
must on no account weaken each other, and so
the entire race, with war. Much faith is put, in
these days, in arbitration, but on false presumptions.
No so-called " international arbitration court " in
existence has any authority whatsoever. 2 Such a
body is of value only when it is giving advice to
contestants who greatly desire to come to a friendly
agreement, and who, for the sake of peace, are
predisposed to take the " court's " advice. Even
then its value is not great, for such contestants
might very probably, without its aid, have come
to a peaceable understanding. The Pan-Angle
nations do most heartily desire peace among them-
selves. They are then the best calculated to find
arbitration useful. The question thus arises whether
some tribunal can be established on Pan-Angle
soil, for the settlement of Pan- Angle inter-national
1 Quoted in Woodrow Wilson, Mere Literature, Boston, 1900,
p. 149. 2 Cf. ante, p. 121.
216 THE PAN-ANGLES
disputes. It would be a makeshift and powerless,
until by the establishment of a common govern-
ment it ceased to be inter-national, and became a
potent source of justice under the Pan-Angle
federation. 1 It is, however, a straw we well might
grasp until we reach a firmer footing. The greatest
advantage of an organized body for Pan- Angle
arbitration is that from it might develop something
more practicable, as from the Mary land- Virginia
Conference at Alexandria in 1785 2 and as from
the South African Railway Rates Conference in
1908 3 developed respectively the federations of the
United States and South Africa.
Other stepping-stones ready for our use are to
be found in Britannic-American conferences on
matters of mutual interest. In February 1908 a
conference on the conservation of the natural
resources of North America was held at Washing-
ton, at which three Pan- Angle nations were repre-
sented by delegates. 4 Some of the subjects suitable
for such discussion are forests, river flowage for
power or irrigation purposes, and migrating birds.
If a conference were held for mutual information
on sea-fisheries, all our nations might well send
delegates. A similar opportunity is afforded in
the urgent need of making uniform and sensible
the spelling of our language. At a meeting in
connection with the Conference of Education
1 The growth of inter-cantonal arbitration in Switzerland,
leading to present federal court, is alluded to in Woodrow
Wilson, The State, 1898, rev. ed., Boston, 1911, p. 328.
2 Ency. Brit., vol. xxvii. p. 685.
3 Ibid., vol. xxv. p. 482.
4 Britannica Year Book, London, 1913, p. 664<.
WORKING FOR FEDERATION 217
Associations in London, January 5, 1914, it was
stated " that an international conference should be
summoned at which all parts of the British Empire
and the United States should be represented." 1
However great the good resulting from such
conferences in relation to their stated objects, it
may some day appear insignificant compared to the
assistance rendered towards producing federation.
Quicker and cheaper communication is working
steadily towards better Pan- Angle understanding.
International postal arrangements date only from
1874, but two-cent (penny in the British Isles, New
Zealand, Australia, and South Africa) postage is
now so general from points within to other points
within the Pan-Angle world, that by far the
majority of inter- Pan- Angle letters have the
advantage of that rate. Land and water tele-
graphs by wire and wireless are steadily linking
up points further and further apart, and rates are
becoming cheaper. The telephone is now a common
household necessity over much of the Pan- Angle
world, and bids fair in time to conquer distances
as effectively as do telegraph lines. Every such
agency, producing a very real " closer union," is a
factor in promoting Pan-Angle federation.
The cheapness and speed of travel are increasing
at rates to which no bounds can reasonably be set.
Steamers, on which we so largely depend as inter-
Pan- Angle carriers, yearly serve more routes, are
more numerous and faster. We shift easily from one
country to another as business or inclination takes
us. Ambassador Page has proposed that newspaper
men from the British Isles and America serve an
1 The Times Weekly Edition, London, January 9, 1914.
218 THE PAN-ANGLES
apprenticeship on journalistic staffs in each other's
countries. 1 The imperial "grand tour" of the British
Isles parliamentary party, recently completed, 2 gave
British politicians, better than would any number
of voluminous reports, an opportunity to appreci-
ate the needs and aspirations of the five other
Britannic nations. The celebration of the Centen-
ary of Peace will this year furnish innumerable
similar opportunities. Every personal acquaintance
of one Pan- Angle with the country of other Pan-
Angles makes for the understanding that must
The formation of a Pan- Angle federation must
depend in the end on our voters* who are the source
of first and final appeal in our political problems.
It will be achieved when they are self-persuaded
that it is desirable, that is, when they have been
educated to see its necessity. Only such means of
education may properly be used as will open the
path to self-persuasion. Among these, two readily
suggest themselves. The first is the educative
work that can be done by associations of those
aroused to interest in the matter. The second is
the educative influence of travel and sojourn of
Pan- Angles in each other's countries.
Voluntary associations established by private
initiative are among us recognized means of
furthering reform. Through public discussion,
whether printed or spoken, they have fostered
many of the great movements for which we all
1 The Times Weekly Edition, London, December 19, 1913.
Account of Speech of American Ambassador at dinner of the
Institute of Journalists, London, December 13, 1913.
2 United Empire, London, January 1914, p. 13.
WORKING FOR FEDERATION 219
are now grateful. " Discussion is the greatest of
all reformers. It rationalizes everything it touches.
It robs principles of all false sanctity and throws
them back upon their reasonableness. If they
have no reasonableness, it ruthlessly crushes them
out of existence and sets up its own conclusions in
their stead.'' 1 These associations and their beliefs,
if not supplying a public need, wither and die.
But if the times call for them, movements are
started which pass through a regular growth from
insignificance and obscurity to contempt and
ridicule, followed by public opposition and finally
by success. Such have been the histories of the
freedom of conscience, the abolition of slavery, and
a host of similar triumphs. Men of like ideals
associate themselves together, take a name that
proclaims their tenets, and spend their time and
energy and money to set forth the truth as they
see it. Everyone is given a chance to learn, but no
one is compelled to believe. No purpose can be
so lofty, no course of action so advantageous, that
it does not need expounding. The countless peace
societies and the millions spent in that cause bear
witness. Meeting places must be hired, literature
must be printed and posted, advertising in its many
forms must not be neglected. All this means
sacrifice of some sort from somebody — obviously
from those who have the success of the work at
heart. In every Pan-Angle nation can be found
plenty of organizations which are doing on a small
scale in reference to some local interest just what
some non-local, inter-national organization could
1 Woodrow Wilson, The State, 1898, Boston, rev. ed., 1911,
220 THE PAN ANGLES
well do on a large scale for such an ideal as Pan-
Angle federation. The organization should be on
an inter-Pan- Angle basis, if for no other reason
than to make for uniformity in its efforts and to
prevent it from slipping into local points of view.
As the demand for Pan- Angle federation grows,
practical politics will not remain insensible to it.
Then will be the time to marshal to its aid forces
such as have finally established by law the present
nationhood of each of us.
In this labour of education we must work openly
in the presence of each other and under the scrutiny
of the nations of the world. If we were Germans
or Japanese, an international coup might be accom-
plished by diplomatic work unknown to the voters,
and the affair put through with secrecy and
despatch. It is vain to wish for such a style of
procedure, and we have no desire, in this case, to
change from the more laborious and tedious method
of popular education and individual action. So to
change would demonstrate that we had lost the
very essence of our civilization — the initial as well
as the final control of our own destinies. We must
work openly, because it is one of our inestimable
privileges to make up our own minds.
Not only can individual initiative accomplish
this work, it can do it better than can any other
method. Ideas of state interference under the
guise of public ownership are making headway all
over the Pan-Angle world. One industry after
another, for one reason or another, is removed from
the field of private endeavour, and is run for good
or ill by governments. It has never been thus
with our political undertakings. The spectacle of
WORKING FOR FEDERATION 221
a Pan-Angle government calling on all good
citizens to aid in celebrating a Twenty-first of
November, or a Twenty-fourth of May, or a Fourth
of July is so unheard of as to be laughable, 1 and it
is to be hoped that in the matter of Pan-Angle
federation the people will be the compelling power
forcing their respective governments to action.
Of the promotion of travel and sojourn of Pan-
Angles in each other's countries we have one
notable example. Cecil John Rhodes, wishing to
instil in the minds of Britannic Pan- Angles " the
advantage to the Colonies as well as to the United
Kingdom of the retention of the unity of the
Empire,'' 2 and desiring "to encourage and foster
an appreciation of the advantages which I implicitly
believe will result from the union of the English-
speaking peoples throughout the world and to
encourage in the students from the United States
of North America ... an attachment to the
country from which they have sprung but without
I hope withdrawing them or their sympathies from
the land of their adoption or birth," 3 directed the
trustees of his estate to establish scholarships at the
University of Oxford. Each year picked men
from English-speaking lands travel to England,
enrol themselves in this Pan- Angle university, and
there measure themselves against representatives
of all their race. At the end of three years they
return to their respective countries. The book
1 The French Government Proclamations posted in Paris (in
1909) concerning the 14th of July called on all good citizens to
help the government celebrate the day.
2 W. T. Stead, The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John
Rhodes, London, 1902, p. 23. 3 Ibid., pp. 24-29.
222 THE PAN-ANGLES
knowledge they have acquired could have been
furnished by any one of many universities. But
Rhodes' sagacity has given them infinitely more.
They have lived and studied and travelled in what
is truly the Mother Country of us all. They have
become conscious of their fellow Pan- Angles and
have made their fellow Pan-Angles conscious of
them. Their understanding and sympathy is freed
for all time from narrow prejudices.
The work so generously begun should be ex-
tended. Not only in the British Isles but in
North America, in South Africa, and in Australasia
young Pan-Angles should be brought in touch
with the other portions of our race, and should see
at first hand what problems require solving by us
throughout the world. Not a Pan- Angle university
from M c Gill to Dunedin, from Ann Arbor to
Stellenbosch, but would welcome some exchange of
students similar to the growing system of exchange
professors. Not one, if it could offer scholarships
to the youth of the other nations, but would have
enlarged the scope of its usefulness and have
grown from local to inter-national importance.
Patriotic Pan- Angles by endowing such scholar-
ships could hasten the accomplishment of the Pan-
Angle federation, and thus share in ensuring the
safety of every Pan- Angle nation, and in securing
our civilization for the benefit of ourselves and for
the peace of the world.
Meanwhile no vision of future Pan-Angle safety
should blind any one of us to his country's present
needs. In the interim before federation, we must
so strengthen each of our respective nations as
best to weather the storm of adversity should it
WORKING FOR FEDERATION 223
burst upon us before co-operation is secured.
Simultaneously with the recession to home waters
of the British Isles fleet, the younger Britannic
nations are taking appropriate steps to ensure
their separate interests. This is an evidence that
each recognizes danger. Each assumes that these
defensive efforts are not induced by the fear of
other Pan- Angles. This is no place to discuss
the compulsory military service already established
in New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa, nor
to suggest that it would not be needed were
Pan-Angle federation already an accomplished
fact. Nor is this a suitable occasion to discuss
the policies, strengths, or weaknesses of separate
Britannic or Pan-Angle navies. America must
be equal to the emergency of defending all Pan-
Angles who would seek its protection if the
British Isles fleet were to suffer a serious
setback. Wisely, America and Canada waste
no Pan-Angle funds in fortifications on their
long boundary or in war vessels on the Great
Lakes. But they should both maintain on salt
water navies, which they can use for the joint
interests of Pan-Angles. Canada and America
may soon need to co-operate with Australasia in
solving the problems of the Pacific. 1 Pan- Angle
nations may severally make alliances with foreign
powers for the purpose of protecting us all. One
of them has already done so. 2 But peoples who
are strong enough make no foreign alliances.
As we work towards federation we must not be
1 Cf. R. M. Johnston in the New York Times, November 16,
1913, p. 5 ; and Round Table, London, June 1913, pp. 572-583.
2 British-Japanese treaty and French understanding.
224 THE PAN-ANGLES
discouraged at our slow rate of visible progress.
For " slow thought is the ballast of a self-governing
state." 1 The growth of the federal idea may be
none the less vigorous because its fruitage appears
long delayed. These pages abound with examples
of the fact that we are slow to move politically.
Were it otherwise, the autonomous nations of
the Britannic world would long since have had
representation in some common parliament, would
have established a single final court of appeal, and
a common citizenship ; an overburdened British
Parliament would no longer legislate on English
municipal drainage, affairs of the dependencies,
and questions of inter-Pan-Angle concern. As
it is, the five younger Britannic nations, realizing
tardily that the British navy no longer adequately
protects them, have not as yet bestirred themselves
to effect more cohesive and coherent political
relations with each other, and between themselves
and the British Isles. America, astride the
Western Hemisphere, in her own estimation secure
against invasion, is taken up with internal develop-
ment, and but seldom, even since the last Pan-
Angle war with Spain, looks out at the increasing
pressure beyond her borders.
We move slowly. Pan -Angle federation is
still a dream. But no one can foresee how rapidly
external pressure may turn dreams into practical
politics. The federation of the Pan- Angles may
be forced upon us — ready or not. Or we may find
some day that it is too late to federate.
Our method of combining, the distribution of
powers between the existing governments and the
1 Woodrow Wilson, Mere Literature, Boston, 1900, p. 98.
WORKING FOR FEDERATION 225
new government, it is not here necessary or appro-
priate to discuss, other than to acknowledge that
our history confesses that federation is the present
ideal of government of this civilization. In other
instances of suggested closer union, "The advo-
cates of national consolidation have been constantly
subjected, as everyone familiar with current dis-
cussion knows, to two diametrically opposite forms
of criticism. They are vigorously reproached . . .
for not stating in detail the method by which their
purposes are to be accomplished ; they are ridiculed
... as people who aim at binding together by
means of a ' cut and dried plan ' an Empire
which has hitherto depended upon slow processes
of growth for its constitutional development." 1
Enough that in our previous separate histories
we have had constitutional conventions to draw
up both national and state constitutions. Many
men who have taken part in such conventions are
now living. What we have acquired a habit of
doing on a large scale, we can do again on a larger
scale. Such representatives can construct, for sub-
mission to our voters, a framework of federal Pan-
With the voters of the seven Pan-Angle nations
rest the decisions of when and how our co-operation
is to be accomplished. That it is to be accom-
plished many now earnestly believe. And of it
many can now say, as did Washington in the
American Constitutional Convention : " Let us
raise a standard to which the wise and honest can
repair." Before that future constitutional conven-
tion can have been accomplished, men will have
1 G. R. Parkin, Imperial Federation, London, 1892, p. 296.
226 THE PAN-ANGLES
gathered together the wisdom of the race, and will
have drawn up a constitution better than any now
in use. Voters from the ends of the earth will
discuss what our governmental framework should
be, and, although our statesmen will act the major
parts, we may agree with Burke : " I have never
yet seen any plan which has not been mended by
the observations of those who were much inferior
in understanding to the person who took the lead
in the business." 1
What is desirable in this federation to preserve
ourselves from the menace of other civilizations?
How shall we balance our powers to ensure freedom
to the individual and freedom to local groups to
follow their individual yearnings with safety to
them and to us all ? How shall we bind ourselves
for that all-time, the indefinite future, so that we
shall be gladly bound, and yet be freemen still?
" If, . . . in the famous words of Lincoln, we as
a body in our minds and hearts 'highly resolve'
to work for the general recognition by society of
the binding character of international duties and
rights as they arise within the Anglo-Saxon group,
we shall not resolve in vain. A mere common
desire may seem an intangible instrument, and yet,
intangible as it is, it may be enough to form the
beginning of what in the end can make the whole
1 Quoted in Woodrow Wilson, Mere Literature, Boston, 1900,
2 Rt. Hon. Richard Burdon Haldane, Lord High Chancellor
of Great Britain, before the American Bar Association, Montreal,
September 1, 1913, Report of Thirty-Sixth Meeting oj the Associa-
tion, Baltimore, 1913, p. 41 6.
The English-speaking peoples who govern them-
selves are faced by the not remote possibility of the
destruction of one or more of their seven nations,
should these nations be unable to co-operate.
The destruction of any one would be a loss to all
the others. The destruction of one or more of
these nations might carry in its turn the destruction
of others — or all. If one of the densely populated
and wealthy nations were overpowered, the others
would be exposed to the greater risk of attack.
If one of the less densely populated and less
wealthy nations were destroyed, the race would
be deprived of homes for its growing numbers.
The Britannic nations and America have identical
interests in the safety of each and every one of
these seven nations. The belief is here expressed
that no co-operation short of unity of government
will form an effective means of safeguarding the
The danger to the Britannic nations was ex-
pressed in May 1911: "The truth is that the
safety of the Imperial system cannot be maintained
much longer by the arrangements which exist at
present. No one, in the face of the facts brought
THE PAN- ANGLES
forward in this article, can believe that the need
for national strength is disappearing. The British
naval budget and the creation of the Dominion
navies alone disprove it. Yet it is quite clear that
Great Britain alone cannot indefinitely guarantee
the Empire from disruption by external attack.
The further one looks ahead the more obvious
does this become. A nation of 45,000,000 souls,
occupying a small territory and losing much of the
natural increase in its population by emigration,
cannot hope to compete in the long run even
against single powers of the first magnitude — with
Russia, for instance, with its 150,000,000 inhabit-
ants, with America with its 90,000,000, with
Germany with its 65,000,000, increasing by nearly
a million a year, to say nothing of China with its
430,000,000 souls. Far less can it hope to main-
tain the dominant position it has hitherto occupied
in the world, with a dozen new powers entering
upon the scene. Each of these powers, of small
account by itself, is already an important factor
in the scale which measures the balance of power.
And as they are steadily increasing in wealth and
population, it is only a question of time before
some of them will become first-class powers in
their turn. What will be the position of the
Empire then, if it has to depend upon the navy
of England alone ? Obviously the day must come
when, if the Empire is to continue, it must be
defended by the Joint efforts of all its self-govern-
ing peoples." l
In March 1913 another Britannic writer states :
" The urgency of the situation does not diminish.
1 Round Table, London, May 1911, pp. 251-252.
Already, without striking a blow, Germany has
practically detached the British navy from every
sea except the North Sea — a result which no
Englishman a few years ago would have believed
to be possible in any circumstances whatever." 1
The Britannic nations are not united in any
single foreign policy. Hence they offer many
opportunities for fatal discord. "It is simply
impossible for the Dominions to set up inde-
pendent foreign policies and independent defensive
systems of their own without destroying the
Empire, even if foreign powers refrain from attack.
Suppose the present tendency carried to its logical
conclusion. Instead of there being one govern-
ment responsible for the safety of the Empire,
there will be five. Each of these governments
will be free to pursue any policy it likes, and each
will have military or naval strength with which to
back its policy. Each of them, therefore, may
involve itself in war. And if the policy of one
government, or the use it makes of its navy, does
lead to war, what is to be the position ? Are the
other governments to be involved ? The Dominions,
not unreasonably, do not admit their responsibility
for the policy of Great Britain, because they have
no share in framing it. Is Great Britain to be
responsible for the policy of the Dominions?
Australia, for instance, is committed to the policy
of Asiatic exclusion — a policy which may lead to
international complications of the gravest kind." 2
Again, " Obviously, the principle of complete
local autonomy, admirably as it works for the
1 Richard Jebb, The Britannic Question, London, 1913, p. 258.
2 Round Table, London, May 1911, pp. 252-253.
230 THE PAN-ANGLES
internal politics of the Empire, cannot be applied
to foreign affairs. The Empire will infallibly dis-
appear if any one of five governments can involve
it in war." 1
The Round Table article does not even consider
the chance of war between Britannic nations.
Doubtless the thought is so abhorrent that the
possibilities which the facts present are often over-
looked. Yet such possibilities do exist, and are
added reasons for Britannic unity of government.
Whatever dangers threaten the Britannic nations,
threaten also America. In some cases these dangers
are indirect or seemingly remote, in others, more
immediately pressing. Injury to any part of the
race would be an injury to America. If the
Britannic nations receive any substantial damage,
America must face the world as the head naval
power of the English-speaking civilization. It
would succeed to all the responsibilities and diffi-
culties of that position, and its ability to discharge
that duty would have been diminished by whatever
damage the Britannic nations had sustained.
War between any of the Britannic nations and
America would be as fratricidal as that between
any of the six Britannic nations. But the possi-
bility of such a war, however abhorrent, is not to
be ignored. America's population among the
Pan- Angle nations soon will be approximated
only by that of Canada. Rivalry between America
and Canada would weaken the civilization in its
population and wealth centre — its heart. If such
rivalry should involve the clash of the six
Britannic nations against America, the struggle
1 Round Table, London, May 1911, pp. 253-254.
would be more stupendous than any the race has
All that is written as argument for closer union
among the Britannic nations applies with equal
force to a project intended to check the intra-
racial struggles and safeguard the inter-racial
security of our whole Pan-Angle civilization.
The Pan-Angles have had their civil wars, both
in and out of England : the English Civil War,
the American Revolution, and the American Civil
War. The Pan- Angles have had their foreign
wars. They have outrun the Spanish, Portuguese,
Dutch, and French. These struggles warn us to
co-operate to avoid further civil wars and to meet
the foreign wars to come.
The race centre has moved, as Franklin foresaw,
across the Atlantic. Canada, reaching to the two
oceans, is the keystone of the Britannic arch. Its
population will soon exceed that of the British
Isles, whether compared with the present or any
future British Isles population now imaginable.
A proposal to establish the Britannic capital in
Canada commends itself to some who are anxious
for Britannic closer union. This, however, con-
cerns the political unity of only the smaller portion
of the race. The Pan- Angle house would still be
divided. The future will be better secured to the
race if the seven nations, taking counsel together,
build a common capital on that unfortified boundary
between the two Atlantic-Pacific nations.
Bound into one federal body politic, the seven
Pan- Angle nations would ensure to each of their
component groups as final a sense of political
security as any people have ever experienced
232 THE PAN-ANGLES
within the knowledge of history. We should
doubtless prefer to enjoy such a security without
entering into any political combination. Each
nation desires to go its own gait, yielding no iota
of its independence. Since we cannot do that in
safety, it is better to be bound into a co-operative
unity with our fellow Pan- Angles, than to run
any risk of suffering the bondage of an alien
government. Most of us have already tried federa-
tion and found it effective. The British Isles
appears about to adopt it. While it makes for
strength, it permits and encourages individual
freedom and local self-government, essentials to
Pan- Angle existence.
The reasons for federation are many, and the
obstacles are not as great as those we have met
and overcome in previous instances of like nature
in our local histories.
Only a few reasons for federation have been here
given. They are based on some of the reiterative
similar facts which in our various local histories
emphasize the same Pan- Angle principles. Many
other reasons drawn from Pan- Angle experience
will occur to the reader. He who wishes to see
these arguments supplemented in the stories of the
downfall of other civilizations can find much in
non- Pan- Angle history to verify the theme of this
book. But he will fail to find any case of the rule
of one people over areas so extensive and so
populous ; he will fail to find free men so equal in
freedom — religious, political, and personal. There
are to-day over one hundred and forty-one millions
of white, English-speaking, self-governing people,
who are living witnesses that government of the
people, by the people, and for the people, shall not
perish from the earth.
For the citizens, and subject to their presentative
sanction, the practice of representative government
exists. The citizens do not exist for the sake of
the government. To enlarge the sphere of the
individual with due regard to the preservation of
the group, Pan-Angles have used and proved the
federal idea of government.
England gave us the tenets of presentative and
representative control manifested in unitary govern-
ments. New England, beginning in the days of
"The United Collonyes " of 1643, added to our
English heritage the tenet of the co-existence of
a federal common government and partner unitary
governments. England is now merged into the
nationality of the British Isles, and New England
is merely a small corner of America. But the ideas
they gave to us live wherever Pan- Angles talk of
the safety of our civilization.
The success of our former attempts at lesser
" closer unions," is the best evidence of our co-
operative ability in the face of obstacles. American,
Canadian, Australian, and South African experi-
ences show how difficulties are overcome when the
need is understood. Rhode Island held back — the
last to enter the new America ; Nova Scotia held
back — the last willingly to enter the new Canada ;
Queensland held back — the last to enter the consti-
tutional convention for the new Australia ; and
Natal held back — the last to support the new South
Africa. Obstacles have always been present. They
will arise in any effort for similar co-operations.
But the common danger and common need is
234 THE PAN-ANGLES
enough to dispel the obstacles in the path of
Pan- Angle federation.
Only by the force of public opinion do we
accomplish our common intentions. We are slow
to act politically. The refusal seven times repeated
of the British Government to acknowledge New
Zealand as within the Britannic world, and the
long delayed start by America to build an Atlantic-
Pacific canal are typical of all of us. But when our
public desires are once formed they find a way to
While we Pan- Angles wait, our rivals are growing
If anyone searches here for unfriendly criticism
or disparagement, or for an ulterior motive in
advocating such a federation, he will be dis-
appointed or self-deceived. If he be an American
who thinks he sees here a suggestion that the
United States should assert the hidden might of
her eighty odd millions of resourceful people to
compel by diplomacy or tariffs such joint action ;
if he be a Britisher who thinks he sees here another
pushing American plan of wider world control ; if
he be from one of the five new Britannic nations
and guards jealously his own worthy pride of
nationhood from the numerical domination of
both the British Isles and America, and fears that
his own nation's autonomy is covertly attacked — in
any such case the reader, whoever he be, is wrong.
These pages are to tell Pan- Angles that their
efforts will be wasted in any work not based on
mutual respect and — may the word be used
between men of a race who hesitate to show it —
affection ; to tell the Pan- Angle who has not
before realized it that we are all of the same race,
hard fighters and firm friends ; and to tell the men
of each Pan- Angle nation that their system of
individual representation, with primary and final
control in the voters of the nation, is the race
system. To the Pan- Angle reader, wherever he
be, just around the corner or at the other side of
the globe (which ought to be the same in this, our
world), these pages are addressed in hopes of help-
ing each of us better to understand each other, and
to remind us how much we need each other's help.
This attempt to express ourselves in terms of
ourselves may seem a trite treatise to those familiar
with our history. The reason for saying trite
things is lest we forget.
The federation of the Pan-Angles is, perhaps to
many of us, the vision that is to become a reality
as a result of this " Era of English-speaking Good
Feeling." We have inherited not only lands but
ideals from the men who fought for them, regard-
less of whether it was they or we, their children,
who should inherit and enjoy them. To defend
these lands, these ideals of personal freedom, and
this language we speak, we once had unquestioned
supremacy over the seas of the world. By a
federation of the English-speaking white people of
these seven nations, the control of the world and
the self-control of our own citizens will again be in
the certain care of the Pan- Angles.
" We sailed wherever ship can sail,
We founded many a noble state ;
Pray God our greatness may not fail
Through craven fear of being great."
Aborigines, the, of Pan - Angle
lands, 27, 135.
Adams, John, cited, 107.
Administration, the, 118.
Administrative control, 94, III.
Africa. See South Africa.
Albany Conference, 184, 186, 187,
I 9 1 -.
Aliens, assimilation of, 25, 26.
Alliance stage in Pan-Angle rela-
America. See United States.
National language, 39, 40.
Nationhood demonstrated in the
issue of the Civil War, 168.
People, the, 23.
States, combination between, 53,
179, 180. See also under
American Ambassador, the, quoted,
American Bar Association, 172,
226 n. 2 .
American Civil War, 150, 166-168,
173; effect of, on the atti-
tudes of the British Isles and
the United States, 169-170.
American colonies, the, 8, 10, 1 1 ;
commercial friction in, in the
eighteenth century, 121.
American colonization, 51 n. l ;
women's share in, 51 and
American Revolution, the, 15, 114
and n., 122, 161, 164, 174,
180; migrations incident to,
Americans, defined, 84 n.
Angles, the, 4, 5, 6.
Anglican, the term, 18.
Anglo- Japanese treaty, 145, 223.
Anglo-Saxon : the term considered,
18; element in United States
government, the, 37.
Appeal Court, 90.
Arbitration courts, 121, 122, 175 n. 2 ,
Arbitration treaty between America
and the British Isles, 182 n. 2 .
Immigration, 125, 138.
Indian, the, 138.
Races, problem of, 27.
Australia, 16, 27, 79, 158.
Asiatic immigration, 125, 143-
146 passim, 158, 229.
Constitution, the, 98, no and n.,
Federation in, 121, 168, 180.
Government, 1 12-1 13 and n., 193.
Upper House, election to, 109.
Australian, characteristics of the, 52.
Barbados, suggestion from, for closer
union between England and
Bible, English version of, 28.
Boer War, the, 123, 213.
Boone, Daniel, 50.
Botha, General, quoted, 80.
Britain, early history of, 2 et seq.
Britannic nations, the, 88 ; an alli-
ance existent among, 181-
183, 210; federation of, 208,
209, 210, 224 ; attitude of, in
foreign policy, 229-230 ; and
Britannica Year Book, 109.
British-American friendship, 174-
175 and n. 2 , 182-183.
British Columbia and Oriental
immigration, 125, 144-146.
British Isles :
Colonies and federation, 189.
attitude to Colonial question in
the Cobden era and during
the era of Gladstone, 163.
Constitution, 96 et seq.
Defined, 83 n.
Federal model for, the, 197.
Government, 62, 95, 111-115
passim, 193 ; weakness of
unitary system in, 195, 224 ;
executive office during the
American Revolution, 114.
Naval defence, 157-159, 228;
Big Fleet policy, 127, 128,
Parliament. See below.
Privy Council, Judicial Commit-
tee, 90, 91, 124.
British- Japanese treaty, 145, 223.
British North America Act, 85, 168.
British Parliament, 95 ; and the
constitution, 96-98, 102, 103 ;
development of, 57-58 ; now
in essence unicameral, 58,
American representatives in,
Cabinet, the, 1 15.
General Election, 112.
Relations with the Colonial
Governments, 85 et seq.
British South African Company, 49.
Britons, the, 2 ; under Roman ad-
Brown, John, and the abolition of
Bryce, Lord, 176; on British-Ameri-
can friendship, quoted, 176-
177 ; cited, 32 ; quoted, 101.
Buller, Charles, 162.
Burke, E., cited, 11, 61 ; quoted, 94,
Cabot, John and Sebastian, 7 n. 1 .
Caldecott, H., English Colonization
and Empire, quoted, 59, 87,
91, 172 n. 2 .
Canada, 13,16,23,79,110, 133, 158,
169, 172 and n. 2 , 180, 191,
Government, 193, 194.
Immigration, 24-25 n.
Loyalist migrations into, during
the American Revolution,
Separation, the question of, 162,
Upper House, election to, 109,
Canadian Constitution, the, 98, 168.
Canadian Rebellion (1837), 15.
Cape Colony, native franchise in,
Cape Times, quoted, 120 n. l .
Carnarvon, Lord, cited, 123.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Joseph,
quoted, 87, 175 ; reply to Sir
Wilfrid Laurier at Colonial
Conference (1902), 181.
Chatham, Lord, 134, 174 and n.
China, 140-142, 143, 228 ; civiliza-
tion of, as a danger for Pan-
Choate, Joseph H., quoted, 176, n.
Churchill, Mr Winston, quoted, 197,
Civil discord as a danger for Pan-
Cobden, cited, 163.
Colonial Conference (1902), the, 79,
Colonial government, inauguration
of modern, 162.
Colonial independence, 170.
Colonial Office, the, 89.
Colonial representation favoured
by Pownall and Franklin,
184 «., 185, 187-189, 192,
Colonies and possessions, distinc-
tion between, not appreciated
by the rulers of England,
Colonization, by the Pan-Angles,
Commerce, competitions of, between
Common law of England and of
Scotland, 67-68, 96, 97.
Conference of Education Associa-
Congress and the American Con-
Constitutions, 60 ; as restrictions on
the power of the people's
American, 99 et seq.
Ancient and modern compared,
95 »• 2 -
British, 96 et seq.
Written, 100, 105.
Converging tendency, 170, 173, 174.
Co-operation for protection of lands
and trade, 46.
Corfield, Richard C, 49.
Court of Arbitration, 121, 122, 215.
Court of Appeal, 90.
Crown colonies, the, 16 n.
Danes, the, 4, 5, 6.
Dangers to the Pan-Angle civiliza-
tion, 120 et seq., 227.
Civil discord, 120, 231.
Frictions, 121 et seq.
Sense of security as a danger,
Subject populations as a source
Defoe, Daniel, quoted, 6.
Delegation, 194 n. \
Dependencies, distinguished from
colonies, 9, 91-93.
Devolution, 194 and n. l .
Dewey, Admiral, 54.
Dilke's Greater Britain, cited, 168.
Downing Street, 88, 89, 90, 125.
Dunraven, Lord, on the principles
of Home Rule, 198.
Durham, Lord, Governor of Canada,
East India Company, 162.
Egerton, H. E., Federations and
Unions, quoted, 205 n.
Election of representatives, the
right of, 59.
Emerson, English Traits, quoted,
Emigration from Great Britain and
Ireland, 22 and n.
Empire, the term, considered,
15-16 and nn., 88, 93.
England, the term, considered, 19.
England, 5 ; the Norman invasion,
5-6 ; in the Age of Dis-
covery, 7 ; the union with
England and the American Col-
onies, 8, 10, 11, 177-179;
Franklin's plans for closer
union between, 184 et seq.
England, modern, area of, 48 <z?z^. 1
English Civil War and law reform,
English common law, 67 et seq., 96,
English, the term, considered, 18-
English language : the tie between
Pan-Angles, 31-32, 39, 40;
characteristics of, 33 ; de-
velopment of, 28, 30, 33 ;
standards in, 29; differences
of dialect and colonization,
29; local variations of speech,
29, 30, 31 ; the written lan-
guage, 31 ; place of, as a
world language, 35 ; Ameri-
English - speaking peoples : the
seven nations, 16 et seq., 79
et seq., 189; number of, 33
andn. 1 232 ; the assumption
of superiority in, 35 et seq.
European migrations into Britain, 2.
Executive control, 94, in.
Federal courts, 102-103.
Federalism, 200, 224.
Federated Malay States, the, 13,
14, 200 n. l .
Federation, 200 n. l 232 ; evolution
Federation of Pan-Angles, con-
sidered, 93, 129-130, 203, 206
et seq., 227 et seq. ; methods
of, 208-209 ; plans for, 210 et
seq.; arbitration as leading to,
216; conferencesas stepping-
stones to, 2 1 6-2 1 7 ; educative
influences as factors in, 218-
220, 221-222 ; facilities for
communication as a factor
in promoting, 217 ; voluntary
associations for promotion
of, 218-220; defensive efforts
previous to, 222-223.
Forbes, W. C, quoted, 92.
Foreign alliances, 223.
Foreign immigration and the Pan-
Angle lands, 24, 25.
France, 131, effect of the Seven
Years War on, 178 ; oversea
possessions of, 132-133 ; re-
garded by British Isles as
an effective ally, 133; holds
no true colonies, 133.
Franklin, Benjamin, on colonial
representation in the British
Parliament, 184, n., 185,
192, 199; scheme of, for
Pan-Angle union, 1 84-191
passim ; a hoax by, 187 n. 2 ;
quoted, 34, 53 ; cited, 12, 61,
French and British in North
America, characteristics of,
French language, the, 34.
Galloway, Pennsylvanian loyalist,
cited, 11 ; quoted, 12.
Germanic tribes, early system of
government in, 54-55.
Germany, 131, 138, 142, 143, 229;
as a rival of the Pan-Angles,
152-156, 158, 228; rise of,
154 ; bureaucracy in, 155.
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. W. E., cited,
Government, different significations
of the word in England and
United States, 118.
Government, ultimate control of,
with the voters, 94, 95.
Non-unitary, 6, 193.
inadequacy of, 195.
Governmental practices, 94 et seq.
Governments: complementary func-
tions in, 170; presentative
and representative, 61, 62, 63.
Governors, the British, 86, 87, 108-
109 n.\ the power of veto of,
86, 87, 89.
Grant, President, 167, 169,
Grey, Sir Edward, 152.
Hague Tribunal, the, 121-122.
Haldane, Lord, quoted, 226 and n. 2 .
Hamilton, Alexander, 117.
Hardinge, Lord, cited, 120 n. \
Hawaiian Islands, the, 143, 144.
Hay-Pauncefoote treaty, 128.
Hindus, 125 n.\
Holland, 131 ; oversea possessions
of, 1 32 and n. 2 .
Home Rule, 165 and n. 1 , 198.
House of Commons, 57, 58, 95, 97,
House of Lords, 57 and n. G , 58,
59, 90, 104, 108.
Howe, Joseph, 191.
Howe, Lord, 178 and n.
Howe, Sir William, 178 n.
Hudson's Bay Company, 49.
Hutchinson, quoted, 9.
Imperial Civil War, the. See
Imperial Defence Committee, 90, 91.
Imperial Federation, 15-16.
Joseph Howe's statement, 191.
Imperial Parliament, 88.
India, 8, 9, 13, 16 n., 178.
Individualism of the Pan-Angles,
40, 47 et seq., 1 54 ; and the
gift for combining, 52 ; and
territorial acquisition, 48 ;
and personal liberty, 50 ; in
International arbitration, 121, 122,
175 n. 2,215.
International postal arrangements,
Ireland and the Irish question, 13,
164 and n.\ 165, 197, 198;
union with Great Britain, 192.
Japan, 139, 142-143 ; rise of, as a
world power, 142, 147, 149,
152 ; the increasing popula-
tion and the search for land,
Japanese migration and Pan-Angle
lands, 144-146, 151 ; Ad-
miral Mahan on, 147 et seq. ;
the question of assimilation,
Japanese treaty with Great Britain,
Jefferson, Thomas, 107, 126.
Jenks, E., The Future of British
Law, quoted, 68, 70.
Johnson, Dr., quoted, 38.
Johnston, Sir H. H., cited, 132 if. 1 ,
Jutes, the, 4.
Land and the standard of living,
42 et seq.\ co-operation for
protection of, 46.
Language of the Pan- Angles, growth
Laurier, Sir Wilfrid, quoted, 80, 86,
Law in the Pan-Angle nations, 67
Lee, Robert E., 167.
Legislative control, 94, 108.
Le Rossignol and Stewart, State
Socialism in New Zealand,
quoted, 53 n.
Leroy-Beaulieu, P., Les Etats-Unis
au Vinglibne Steele, cited,
Lincoln, President, 27 n. 1 , 150,
166-167, 168, 226.
Local autonomy, 161, 172,200,229.
Lodge, H. C, One Hundred Years
of Peace, cited, 123.
Lourenco Marques, 132 n. 1 .
Magna Carta, 53, 63.
Mahan, Admiral, 32 ; quoted on
Japan among the Nations,
146 et seq.
Malay Peninsula, Federated States,
the, 13, 14, 200 n. \
Marriage and divorce laws, 71-73 ;
local laws, 72.
Maryland - Virginia, Conference
Massachusetts : settlement of, 8 ;
the Taunton liberty pole, 10,
1 1 ; during the Seven Years
War, 134, 178, 179.
Mayflower, the, 29, 100.
Mill, J. S., The Subjection of
Women, quoted, 73.
Milner, Lord, quoted, 86 ; on the
federation of the Empire,
quoted, 188, 201.
Modyford, Colonel Thomas, 184.
Monroe doctrine, the, 125-128, 154.
Monroe, President, 126, 127.
Moore, W. H., The Constitution
of the Commonwealth of
Australia, cited, 83 n. K
Asiatic Indians in, 123-124.
Zulu rebellion in, 123.
National Church, 74.
Native franchise question in South
Naval co-operation between the
Pan-Angle countries, 158—
Naval expansion, effect on Great
Naval strength, importance of, to
the Pan-Angles, 157, 158 ;
Colonial efforts for, 158, 182.
Negro problem, 27.
Slavery and the War of Secession,
New England, the town meeting in,
59-61 ; union of the Colonies
in, 203-205, 233.
Newfoundland, 7, 16, 81, 161.
Constitution of, 99, no.
New Guinea, 48.
New Zealand, 13, 16, 48, 61, 81-82,
143-146 passim, 158, 234.
Constitution of, 99, no.
Government of, 193, 194.
House of Representatives, method
of election to the Upper
House, 60, 109, no.
Resolutions against Judicial Com-
mittee of the Privy Council,
State Socialism in, 53 and n.
Norman Conquest, the, 5-6, 56.
Norsemen, the, 4.
North America : the struggle for,
178, 179 ; the centre of Pan-
Angle civilization, 191.
Nova Scotia, 233.
Oliver, F. S., Alexander Hamilton,
quoted, 86, 88, 89, 115 n.
Otis, of Massachusetts, cited, 11.
Page, Ambassador, cited, 2 1 7, 2 1 8 n.
Panama Canal tolls, 125, 128.
Pan-Angle, Pan-Angles :
Alliances of, with former com-
Characteristics of, 47.
gift for combining, 52.
Civilization, character of, 41.
Clamour for local autonomy, 200.
Communities, tendency to separa-
tion latent in, 164-165.
Converging tendency among,
173 et seq.
Defined, 17-18, 28.
Equality of citizenship in, II, 13.
Federation of, considered, 93,
129-130, 203, 206 et seq.)
227 et seq.
Governments, 108, 193.
History, commencement of, 7.
Language of, 28.
Law among the, 67 et seq.
area of, 81 n. 1 .
attitude to Japanese immigra-
tion, 144 et seq.
dependencies of, 91-93.
friendship and alliance among,
mutual criticism between,
naval co-operation between,
population of, 81 n. 1 .
similarity in forms of govern-
Origin of, 1 et seq ., 6.
People, the, 22 et seq.
Pioneers, methods of, 48.
Standard of living, 40, 41, 42, 44.
Struggle for world domination,
Struggles with other civilizations,
43,44, 130 et seq.
acquisition of by, 43, 44.
area of, 48 and n. l .
Women, 51 and n. 2 .
Parliament, British. See under
Patriotism and federation, 206-208.
Peel, Sir Robert, 112.
Penington, Isaac, 57 n. 4 .
People, the, similarity of, in the Pan-
Angle nations, 21, 23.
Perry, Admiral, 142.
Philippines, the, 9, 143.
Pitt, William. See Chatham.
Political combinations preservative
of individualism, 54.
Political good feeling, 177.
Political status of the six nations,
84 et seq.
Pollock and Maitland, History of
English Law, cited, 63.
Popular election, 112.
Population of the Pan - Angle
nations, 81 n. 1 .
Portugal, 131, 153.
Oversea possessions of, 132 and
Possessions as distinguished from
Pownall,C. A. W, Thomas Pownall,
Pownall, Governor Thomas, views
of, on colonial representa-
tion, 187-188, 189 ; cited) 12,
61, 187, 190; quoted, 45, 51,
52, 178, 179.
Presentative element in British
government, the, 58.
Presentative government in the
Pan-Angle nations, 55, 56,
61 ; tendency towards an
increase in, 62,
Privy Council, Judicial Committee
of, 90-91, 124.
Quoted passages, meaning of
terms in, 19 n. K
Recall, 60, 62.
Referendum, 60, 61.
Reform Bill (1832), 50, 112.
Religion and individualism, 73-75.
Representation : difficulties attend-
ant upon, 60 ; not in itself
enough for Pan-Angles, 200.
Representative government, de-
velopment of, 54, 56-58 ;
transplantation of, to the
colonies, 58, 59.
Representative, a, not necessarily
chosen by the people he
represents, 59 ; chosen by
elections and referenda, 95.
Rhode Island, 233.
Rhodes, Cecil J., 149, 172 ; interest
in the Irish question, 202
and n. 2 ; views of, as to
federation, 202, 203 ; quoted,
190 ; the Rhodes' Scholar-
ships, 221, 222.
Roman administration of Britain,
Roman Empire population, 17 andn.
Roosevelt, President, 171 andn. 2 .
Royal Colonial Institute, 168 andn.
Rushworth, quoted, 40.
Russia, 138-139, 142 ; growth of,
significance for Pan-Angle
civilization, 139, 142, 228 ;
checked by Japan, 139.
Saxons, the, 4, 5, 6.
Scotland, union with England, 10.
Scots, the, Goldwin Smith quoted
Sea power, importance of, to the
Pan- Angles, 157, 158.
Seeley, J. R., Expansion of Eng-
land, cited and quoted, 88,
92, 134, 160, 168.
Self-government, 8, 9, 120, 172,
201 ; effect of failure to dis-
tinguish between self-govern-
ing and non-self-governing
areas, 13-16 ; and the right
of the British Government,
85 andn., 89 et seq. ; effect
of improper check to, 161 ;
principles of, violated in the
British system, 196.
Sentiment and government, 183.
Separation, the tendency to, 160
et seq., 173.
Seven English - speaking nations,
the, 16 et seq., 79 et seq., 189.
Seven Years War, 134, 178.
Shakespeare, cited, 28, 29.
Shelburne, Lord, 174.
Shirley, Governor, 185, 199.
Silburn, P. A., The Governance of
Empire, quoted, 204, n.
Slavery, the abolition of, 50, 84,
Smith, Goldwin, quoted, 36, 150;
South Africa, 13, 16, 23, 80, 121,
South Africa :
Asiatic Indians in, 120 and n.,
British Government and the in-
ternal affairs of, 123, 213.
Chinese indentured labour in, 123.
Constitution of, 99, no.
Emancipation of slaves in, 84.
Law in, 69.
Natives and the franchise in,
South African Provinces, conver-
gences of, 168.
South African Railway Rates Con-
ference (1908), 216.
South African War, 172, 174, 182.
Spain and her possessions, 131.
Spreading : the tendency to, in Pan-
Angle history, 160-161, 172.
State Church, the, 74.
Stead, W. T., cited, 190.
Suffrage, the, 63, et seq.
Local differences in, 64-65.
Local option, 65.
Sex disqualification, the, 64.
Switzerland, Inter-cantonal, arbitra-
tion in, 216.
Taft, W. H., Popular Government,
cited, 60 n. 3 ; quoted, 65.
Taunton liberty pole, the, 10, n.
Taxation and representation, 12, 13,
Tendencies, 160 et seq.
Revealed in Pan-Angle history,
Teutonic : invasion of Britain, 4 ;
system of government, 113-
114, 116, 117.
Texas, 49 n. \ 82.
Thayer, J. B.John Marshall, quoted,
Times, The, quoted, 120 n. 1 .
Indian question, 125.
Transvaal Leader, cited, 132 n. l .
Trusts or combinations, 52.
Unconstitutional : different mean-
ings of the word in Great
Britain and in United States,
United Empire, 168 n. 2 .
United States, the, i, 9, 16, 45, 83
n. 2 , 178, 179, 180, 228. See
also under American.
Administration, the. See Govern-
Centralization, the demand for,
Colonies, federal government of,
Conference of Governors in, 171
and n. 2 , 172.
Conservation in, 171.
Electoral College, 106, in and
Executive, the, 116.
Federal Constitution of, 99-103
passim, 106, 107, 109 and n.
Federal Government of, 90, 1 1 1-
118 passim, 170-172, 189,
Immigration, 22, 23, 24 n. \
Law in, similar to the law of
England, 70 ; appointment
of the judiciary, 114.
President, the, 62, 101, 114, 116,
117; election of, 11 1; and
Secession movement in, 165 ;
sacrifices to preserve the
Union, 168, 173 ; the War
of Secession, 150, 166-168,
Senators, indirect election of, 60.
State governments in, 65, 114.
States rights, the demand for,
United States :
Upper House, election to, 109,
United States and British Isles,
effect of federation on sources
of disagreement between,
\7.^ etseq. ; treaties between,
United States and the Britannic
nations, 182, 230-231.
Vancouver Island, 210 n.
Virginia, settlement of, 8.
The House of Assembly in, 9, 59.
Voltaire, treatise on Toleration,
Washington, George, cited, 107 ;
Webster, Noah, 34.
William the Conqueror, 5, 55.
Willson, Beckles, The Great Com-
pany, cited, 49 n. 2 .
Willson, Governor (of Kentucky),
171 n. 2 .
Wilson, Woodrow, Mere Literature,
quoted, 95, 166-168 ; The
State, quoted, 107, 114 ».,
Witenagamot, the, 55, 57, 61.
Women's share in American coloni-
zation, 5 1 and n. 2 .
Worsfold, W. B., The Union of
South Africa, quoted, 67,
Yellow races, the, 140 et seq.
PRINTED BY NEILL AND 00., LTD., EDINBURGH.
MAP TO ACCOMPANY
THE PANANGLES: a consideration op the federation op the seven English -speaking nations!
| 3 "* 5 3
3 3 § I s s
*| tl S3
|S I I § 5 I
PORTUGALM, SPAIN «i, HOLLAND 1^, FRANCE IB, PAN-ANGLE NATIONS M, PAN-ANGLE DEPENDENCIES EH, GERMANY □, RUSSIA ■■, JAPAN ■■, CHINACZJ.
Sifton, Praed i C London.S I
D Kennedy, Sinclair
UUG The Pan-Angles
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY